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

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

Outcomes of kidney paired donation transplants in relation to shipping and cold ischaemia time

To assess the impact of shipping distance and cold ischaemia time (CIT) of shipped organs in a kidney paired donation (KPD) programme, we evaluated the outcomes of the initial 100 kidney transplants performed in the Australian KPD programme. In a 44‐month period, 12 centres were involved in fifteen 2‐way, twenty 3‐way, one 4‐way and one 6‐way exchanges. Sixteen kidneys were transplanted at the same hospital (CIT 2.6 ± 0.6 h) and 84 required transport to the recipient hospital (CIT 6.8 ± 2.8 h). A spontaneous fall in serum creatinine by at least 10% within 24 h was observed in 85% of recipients, with no difference between nonshipped and shipped kidneys. There were two cases of transient delayed graft function requiring dialysis and patient and graft survival at 1 year were 99% and 97%, respectively. There was no difference in recipients of nonshipped compared with shipped kidneys with regard to serum creatinine at 1 month (mean difference (MD) 7.3 μmol/l, 95% CI ?20.2 to 34.8, P = 0.59), 1‐year graft survival (MD 3.9%, 95% CI ?5.4 to 13.2, P = 0.41) or patient survival (MD ?2.4%, 95% CI ?10.0 to 5.2, P = 0.54). Despite prolonged CIT for interstate exchanges, the programme's decision to ship donor kidneys rather than the donor appears to be safe.     

Increasing access to kidney transplantation in countries with limited resources: The Indian experience with Kidney Paired Donation

According to the Indian chronic kidney disease registry, in 2010 only 2% of end stage kidney disease patients were managed with kidney transplantation, 37% were managed with dialysis and 61% were treated conservatively without renal replacement therapy. In countries like India, where a well‐organized deceased donor kidney transplantation program is not available, living donor kidney transplantation is the major source of organs for kidney transplantation. The most common reason to decline a donor for directed living donation is ABO incompatibility, which eliminates up to one third of the potential living donor pool. Because access to transplantation with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)‐desensitization protocols and ABO incompatible transplantation is very limited due to high costs and increased risk of infections from more intense immunosuppression, kidney paired donation (KPD) promises hope to a growing number of end stage kidney disease patients. KPD is a rapidly growing and cost‐effective living donor kidney transplantation strategy for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing living donor. In principle, KPD is feasible for any centre that performs living donor kidney transplantation. In transplant centres with a large living donor kidney transplantation program KPD does not require extra infrastructure, decreases waiting time, avoids transplant tourism and prevents commercial trafficking. Although KPD is still underutilized in India, it has been performed more frequently in recent times. To substantially increase donor pool and transplant rates, transplant centres should work together towards a national KPD program and frame a uniform acceptable allocation policy.     

Long‐term outcome of renal transplantation from octogenarian donors: A multicenter controlled study

To assess whether biopsy‐guided selection of kidneys from very old brain‐dead donors enables more successful transplantations, the authors of this multicenter, observational study compared graft survival between 37 recipients of 1 or 2 histologically evaluated kidneys from donors older than 80 years and 198 reference‐recipients of non–histologically evaluated single grafts from donors aged 60 years and younger (transplantation period: 2006‐2013 at 3 Italian centers). During a median (interquartile range) of 25 (13‐42) months, 2 recipients (5.4%) and 10 reference‐recipients (5.1%) required dialysis (crude and donor age‐ and sex‐adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.55 [0.34‐7.12], P = .576 and 1.41 [0.10‐19.54], P = .798, respectively). Shared frailty analyses confirmed similar outcomes in a 1:2 propensity score study comparing recipients with 74 reference‐recipients matched by center, year, donor, and recipient sex and age. Serum creatinine was similar across groups during 84‐month follow‐up. Recipients had remarkably shorter waiting times than did reference‐recipients and matched reference‐recipients (7.5 [4.0‐19.5] vs 36 [19‐56] and 40 [24‐56] months, respectively, P < .0001 for both comparisons). Mean (± SD) kidney donor risk index was 2.57 ± 0.32 in recipients vs 1.09 ± 0.24 and 1.14 ± 0.24 in reference‐recipients and matched reference‐recipients (P < .0001 for both comparisons). Adverse events were similar across groups. Biopsy‐guided allocation of kidneys from octogenarian donors permits further expansion of the donor organ pool and faster access to a kidney transplant, without increasing the risk of premature graft failure.     

Four years of experience with the Australian kidney paired donation programme

New approaches to increase kidney transplantation rates through expansion of live donor kidney transplantation have become necessary due to ongoing shortage of deceased donor organs. These strategies include desensitization in antibody‐incompatible transplants to overcome the barrier of blood group incompatibility or human leucocyte antigen antibodies between recipient and donor and kidney paired donation (KPD) programmes. In KPD, a kidney transplant candidate with an incompatible live donor joins a registry of other incompatible pairs in order to find potentially compatible transplant solutions. To match the largest possible number of donor–recipient pairs while minimizing immunologic risk, KPD programmes use sophisticated algorithms to identify suitable matches with simultaneous two‐way or more complex multi‐way exchanges as well as including non‐directed anonymous donors to start a chain of compatible transplantations. Because of the significant immunologic barriers when fewer donor options are available, the optimal solution for difficult‐to‐match, highly sensitized patients is access to more potential donors using large multi‐centre or national KPD registries. This review focuses on the first 4 years of experience with the Australian multi‐centre KPD programme that was established in October 2010.     

Lack of impact of human leukocyte antigen matching in living donor kidney transplantation: experience at Akdeniz University

Lack of expansion of the deceased donor supply has resulted in a severe shortage of organs worldwide. Spousal donors are one possible alternative organ source for patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Despite human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) matching between recipients and unrelated donors being poor, the reported survival rates for these grafts, including spouses, are comparable to those for grafts from living related donors and higher than those for deceased donor kidneys. In 2000, our renal transplantation program began accepting living donor-recipient pairs with one or zero HLA matches. The purpose of this study was to assess this policy for accepting living unrelated donors. The 3-year graft survival rates for the transplants from living unrelated donors were similar to that for transplants from living related donors (log-rank = 0.078). The number of HLA mismatches did not significantly influence the survival rates for either of these groups of living donor transplants. Multivariate analysis revealed that dialysis duration (P = .057) and recipient age (P = .066) negatively influenced patient survival in living donor kidney transplantation. The graft and patient survival rates for the donor transplantations were higher than those for deceased donor transplantations. In light of these findings and considering the increasing problem of organ shortage, we conclude that living unrelated kidney transplantation should be performed, with strict guidelines. Spousal donation is the most favorable form of living unrelated renal transplantation.     

ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation in perspective of deceased donor transplantation and induction strategies: a propensity-matched analysis

Kidney transplant candidates are blood group incompatible with roughly one out of three potential living donors. We compared outcomes after ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation with matched ABO-compatible (ABOc) living and deceased donor transplantation and analyzed different induction regimens. We performed a retrospective study with propensity matching and compared patient and death-censored graft survival after ABOi versus ABOc living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation in a nationwide registry from 2006 till 2019. 296 ABOi were compared with 1184 center and propensity-matched ABOc living donor and 1184 deceased donor recipients (matching: recipient age, sex, blood group, and PRA). Patient survival was better compared with deceased donor [hazard ratio (HR) for death of HR 0.69 (0.49–0.96)] and non-significantly different from ABOc living donor recipients [HR 1.28 (0.90–1.81)]. Rate of graft failure was higher compared with ABOc living donor transplantation [HR 2.63 (1.72–4.01)]. Rejection occurred in 47% of 140 rituximab versus 22% of 50 rituximab/basiliximab, and 4% of 92 alemtuzumab-treated recipients (P < 0.001). ABOi kidney transplantation is superior to deceased donor transplantation. Rejection rate and graft failure are higher compared with matched ABOc living donor transplantation, underscoring the need for further studies into risk stratification and induction therapy [NTR7587, www.trialregister.nl ].     

Allocation and matching in kidney exchange programs

Living donor kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for patients suffering from end‐stage renal disease. To alleviate the shortage of kidney donors, many advances have been made to improve the utilization of living donors deemed incompatible with their intended recipient. The most prominent of these advances is kidney paired donation (KPD), which matches incompatible patient–donor pairs to facilitate a kidney exchange. This review discusses the various approaches to matching and allocation in KPD. In particular, it focuses on the underlying principles of matching and allocation approaches, the combination of KPD with other strategies such as ABO incompatible transplantation, the organization of KPD, and important future challenges. As the transplant community strives to balance quantity and equity of transplants to achieve the best possible outcomes, determining the right long‐term allocation strategy becomes increasingly important. In this light, challenges include making full use of the various modalities that are now available through integrated and optimized matching software, encouragement of transplant centers to fully participate, improving transplant rates by focusing on the expected long‐run number of transplants, and selecting uniform allocation criteria to facilitate international pools.     

The impact of waiting time and comorbid conditions on the survival benefit of kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Longer waiting times may limit the survival benefit of kidney transplantation in older patients or those with a high burden of comorbid disease. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal study of mortality among 63,783 transplant candidates who started dialysis between April 1995 and December 2000. We determined the relative risk (RR) of death and increase in life expectancy among subjects who received a first deceased donor transplant after different waiting times compared to subjects who had equivalent waiting times but remained on dialysis. RESULTS: Transplant recipients had a lower long-term RR of death and the risk reduction was greatest in recipients with longer waiting times (RR of death 12 months after transplantation for recipients with waiting times of 0, 1, 2, 3 years was 0.49, 0.43, 0.38, 0.34, P = 0.0006).The average increase in life expectancy in transplant recipients was 9.8 years and was lower in older recipients and recipients with comorbid conditions. Increased waiting times from 1 to 3 years only moderately decreased the overall survival benefit of transplantation from 7.1 to 5.6 years, and all subjects derived a survival benefit from transplantation with waiting times up to 3 years. CONCLUSION: These findings do not support limiting access to transplantation for otherwise suitable candidates on the basis of longer anticipated waiting times.     

Impact of single centre kidney paired donation transplantation to increase donor pool in India: a cohort study

In a living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) dominated transplant programme, kidney paired donation (KPD) may be a cost‐effective and valid alternative strategy to increase LDKT in countries with limited resources where deceased donation kidney transplantation (DDKT) is in the initial stages. Here, we report our experience of 300 single‐centre KPD transplantations to increase LDKT in India. Between January 2000 and July 2016, 3616 LDKT and 561 DDKT were performed at our transplantation centre, 300 (8.3%) using KPD. The reasons for joining KPD among transplanted patients were ABO incompatibility (n = 222), positive cross‐match (n = 59) and better matching (n = 19). A total of 124 two‐way (n = 248), 14 three‐way (n = 42), one four‐way (n = 4) and one six‐way exchange (n = 6) yielded 300 KPD transplants. Death‐censored graft and patient survival were 96% (n = 288) and 83.3% (n = 250), respectively. The mean serum creatinine was 1.3 mg/dl at a follow‐up of 3 ± 3 years. We credit the success of our KPD programme to maintaining a registry of incompatible pairs, counselling on KPD, a high‐volume LDKT programme and teamwork. KPD is legal, cost effective and rapidly growing for facilitating LDKT with incompatible donors. This study provides large‐scale evidence for the expansion of single‐centre LDKT via KPD when national programmes do not exist.     

Long-Term Outcomes of Kidney Paired Donation Transplantation: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the kidney paired donation (KPD) program recipients with the traditional living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) recipients regarding patient and graft survival.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 141 recipients of the KPD program and 141 classic LDKT recipients that we matched for age and sex as controls between July 2005 and June 2019. We compared the 2 transplant groups for patient and kidney survival using the Kaplan-Maier test. We also performed Cox Regression analysis to examine factors affecting patient survival, including transplant type.ResultsThe average follow-up period was 96.17 ± 44.22 months. Of the 282 patients, 88 died in the follow-up period. There was no statistically significant difference in graft and patient survival between the KPD and LDKT groups. In the Cox regression model, including the transplant type, only the serum creatinine level measured in the first month after discharge was a significant factor in predicting patient survival.ConclusionsThe findings of this study indicate that the KPD program is an effective and reliable method to increase LDKT. Country-wide multicentric studies should confirm the results of this study. In countries where cadaver transplantation is insufficient, efforts should be made to expand the KPD program.     

Reciprocity to Increase Participation of Compatible Living Donor and Recipient Pairs in Kidney Paired Donation

Inclusion of compatible living donor and recipient pairs (CPs) in kidney paired donation (KPD) programs could increase living donor transplantation. We introduce the concept of a reciprocity‐based strategy in which the recipient of a CP who participates in KPD receives priority for a repeat deceased donor transplant in the event their primary living donor KPD transplant fails, and then we review the practical and ethical considerations of this strategy. The strategy limits prioritization to CPs already committed to living donation, minimizing the risk of unduly influencing donor behavior. The provision of a tangible benefit independent of the CP's actual KPD match avoids many of the practical and ethical challenges with strategies that rely on finding the CP recipient a better‐matched kidney that might provide the CP recipient a future benefit to increase KPD participation. Specifically, the strategy avoids the potential to misrepresent the degree of future benefit of a better‐matched kidney to the CP recipient and minimizes delays in transplantation related to finding a better‐matched kidney. Preliminary estimates suggest the strategy has significant potential to increase the number of living donor transplants. Further evaluation of the acceptance of this strategy by CPs and by waitlisted patients is warranted.     

Increasing access to renal transplantation in India through our single‐center kidney paired donation program: a model for the developing world to prevent commercial transplantation

Because access to transplantation with HLA‐desensitization protocols and ABO incompatible transplantation is very limited due to high costs and increased risk of infections from more intense immunosuppression, kidney paired donation (KPD) promises hope to a growing number of end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patient in India. We present a government and institutional ethical review board approved study of 56 ESRD patients [25 two‐way and 2 three‐way pairs] who consented to participate in KPD transplantation at our center in 2013, performed to avoid blood group incompatibility (n = 52) or positive cross‐match (n = 4). All patients had anatomic, functional, and immunologically comparable donors. The waiting time in KPD was short as compared to deceased donor transplantation. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed in 54 donors. Donor relationships were spousal (n = 40), parental (n = 13), others (n = 3), with median HLA match of 1. Graft survival was 97.5%. Three patients died with functioning graft. 16% had biopsy‐proven acute rejection. Mean serum creatinine was 1.2 mg/dl at 0.73 ± 0.32 months follow‐up. KPD is a viable, legal, and rapidly growing modality for facilitating LDRT for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing living donor. To our knowledge, this is the largest single‐center report from India.     

Survival Benefit From Kidney Transplantation Using Kidneys From Deceased Donors Aged ≥75 Years: A Time‐Dependent Analysis

Patients with end‐stage renal disease have longer survival after kidney transplantation than they would by remaining on dialysis; however, outcome with kidneys from donors aged ≥75 years and the survival of recipients of these organs compared with their dialysis counterparts with the same probability of obtaining an organ is unknown. In a longitudinal mortality study, 2040 patients on dialysis were placed on a waiting list, and 389 of them received a first transplant from a deceased donor aged ≥75 years. The adjusted risk of death and survival were calculated by non–proportional hazards analysis with being transplanted as a time‐dependent effect. Projected years of life since placement on the waiting list was almost twofold higher for transplanted patients. Nonproportional adjusted risk of death after transplantation was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61–0.32; p < 0.001) in comparison with those that remained on dialysis. Stratifying by age, adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.17 (95% CI 0.47–0.06; p = 0.001) for those aged <65 years, 0.56 (95% CI 0.92–0.34; p = 0.022) for those aged 65–69 years and 0.82 (95% CI 1.28–0.52; p = 0.389) for those aged ≥70 years. Although kidney transplantation from elderly deceased donors is associated with reduced graft survival, transplanted patients have lower mortality than those remaining on dialysis.     

Managing highly sensitized renal transplant candidates in the era of kidney paired donation and the new kidney allocation system: Is there still a role for desensitization?

Kidney paired donation (KPD) and the new kidney allocation system (KAS) in the United States have led to improved transplantation rates for highly sensitized candidates. We aimed to assess the potential need for other approaches to improve the transplantation rate of highly sensitized candidates such as desensitization. Using the UNOS STAR file, we analyzed transplant rates in a prevalent active waiting‐list cohort as of June 1, 2016, followed for 1 year. The overall transplantation rate was 18.9% (11 129/58769). However, only 9.7% (213/2204) of candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody ≥99.9% received a transplant, and highly sensitized candidates were less likely to receive a living donor transplant. Among candidates with a CPRA ≥ 99.5% (ie. 100%), only 2.5% of transplants were from living donors (13 total, 7 from KPD). Nearly 4 years after KAS (6/30/2018), 1791 actively wait‐listed candidates had a CPRA of ≥99.9% and 34.6% (620/1791) of these had ≥5 years of waiting time. Thus, despite KPD and KAS, many sensitized candidates have not been transplanted even with prolonged waiting time. We conclude that candidates with a CPRA ≥ 99.9% and sensitized candidates with an incompatible living donor and prolonged waiting time may benefit from desensitization to improve their ability to receive a transplant.     

Kidney Transplant Outcomes for Prior Living Organ Donors

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network gives priority in kidney allocation to prior live organ donors who require a kidney transplant. In this study, we analyzed the effect of this policy on facilitating access to transplantation for prior donors who were wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States. Using 1:1 propensity score–matching methods, we assembled two matched cohorts. The first cohort consisted of prior organ donors and matched nondonors who were wait-listed during the years 1996–2010. The second cohort consisted of prior organ donors and matched nondonors who underwent deceased donor kidney transplantation. During the study period, there were 385,498 listings for kidney transplantation, 252 of which were prior donors. Most prior donors required dialysis by the time of listing (64% versus 69% among matched candidates; P=0.24). Compared with matched nondonors, prior donors had a higher rate of deceased donor transplant (85% versus 33%; P<0.001) and a lower median time to transplantation (145 versus 1607 days; P<0.001). Prior donors received higher-quality allografts (median kidney donor risk index 0.67 versus 0.90 for nondonors; P<0.001) and experienced lower post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.46; P<0.001) than matched nondonors. In conclusion, these data suggest that prior organ donors experience brief waiting time for kidney transplant and receive excellent-quality kidneys, but most need pretransplant dialysis. Individuals who are considering live organ donation should be provided with this information because this allocation priority will remain in place under the new US kidney allocation system.     

Waiting time and outcome of kidney transplantation in adolescents

BACKGROUND: The major cause of late graft failure in adolescent kidney transplant recipients is thought to be nonadherence with medications. Delaying transplantation in adolescents may lead to improved adherence but at the cost of longer time on dialysis. To determine if waiting time on dialysis is a risk factor for graft survival in adolescents, we compared the outcomes of kidney transplants according to age and time on dialysis. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry on 2,739 primary kidney transplants performed between 1980 and 2004 in recipients less than 30 years old. Outcomes according to age at transplantation and waiting time were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard tests. RESULTS: Overall five- and 10-year graft survival rates were significantly worse in adolescents (65% and 50%, respectively) compared to recipients aged two to 10 years (74% and 58%) and 20 to 29 years (72% and 57%). Waiting time on dialysis was an independent risk factor for failure of living donor grafts in adolescents (hazard ratio 0.53, P = 0.03). Five- and 10-year graft survival of preemptive grafts in adolescents were 82% and 70%, respectively, which were similar to survival rates of preemptive grafts in other age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced graft survival rates in adolescent recipients are not seen after preemptive transplants. Preemptive grafts are associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of graft failure. Delaying transplantation in adolescents may expose them to increased risk of poorer outcomes.     

Association Between Waiting Times for Kidney Transplantation and Rates of Live Donation

A deceased donor (DD) allocation system incorporating net life survival benefit has been proposed. In this system, many kidneys will be shifted to younger recipients, thereby decreasing their waiting times. The goal of this study was to determine the potential effects of altering waiting times on the likelihood of live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). We analyzed 93,727 waiting list candidates to determine the association of various patient factors with likelihood of LDKT. The proportion of patients receiving LDKT was compared by the median DD waiting time at that patient's transplant center for someone of that patient's age category and race. LDKT was consistently higher as waiting times became longer. After adjusting for all other factors associated with likelihood of LDKT, waiting time remained a significant, independent predictor. Patients with the longest DD waiting times had 2.3-fold higher odds of LDKT (95% CI 2.11-2.58, p < 0.001). In planning the new DD allocation policy, we must account for resulting alterations in LDKT. It is possible that shifting DD kidneys to younger recipients may decrease LDKT or shift it to older recipients, net effects not consistent with the goal of net life survival benefit.     

Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.     

Outcome of kidney paired donation transplantation to increase donor pool and to prevent commercial transplantation: a single-center experience from a developing country

Background

Economic constraints in operating an effective maintenance dialysis program leaves renal transplantation as the only viable option for end-stage renal disease patients in India. Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a rapidly growing modality for facilitating living donor (LD) transplantation for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing LD.

Materials and methods

The aim of our study was to report a single-center feasibilities and outcomes of KPD transplantation between 2000 and 2012. We performed KPD transplants in 70 recipients to avoid blood group incompatibility (n = 56) or to avoid a positive crossmatch (n = 14).

Results

Over a mean follow-up of 2.72 ± 2.96 years, one-, five- and ten-year patient survival were 94.6, 81, 81 %, and death-censored graft survival was 96.4, 90.2, 90.2 %, respectively. Ten percent of patients were lost, mainly due to infections (n = 4). There was 14.2 % biopsy-proven acute rejection, and 5.7 % interstitial fibrosis with tubular atrophy eventually leading to graft loss.

Conclusion

The incidences of acute rejection, patient/graft survival rates were acceptable in our KPD program and, therefore, we believe it should be encouraged. These findings are valuable for encouraging participation of KPD pairs and transplant centers in national KPD program. It should be promoted in centers with low-deceased donor transplantation. Our study findings are relevant in the context of Indian government amending the Transplantation of Human Organs Act to encourage national KPD program. To our knowledge, it is largest single-center report from India.