Enhancing the Expanded Criteria Donor Policy as an Intervention to Improve Kidney Allocation: Is It Actually a ’Net‐Zero’ Model?

In the United States, relatively little progress has been made in recent years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of deceased donor kidney allocation. Despite enactment of the Expanded Criteria Donor (ECD) Policy in 2002, known inequities and suboptimal utility of donated kidneys persist. In contrast with dialysis patients with shorter predicted life expectancies, those with longer predicted lifetimes can often improve their survival by waiting longer for a Standard Criteria Donor (SCD) kidney. Yet, a substantial fraction of these candidates accept ECD kidneys, often poorly HLA matched. Meanwhile, waitlist mortality continues to rise, particularly among older transplant candidates. Despite required consent processes for candidates to list for ECD kidneys, centers appear to interpret and implement ECD policy differently—some list candidates selectively while others list nearly their entire candidate pool. To ensure more efficient and effective implementation of ECD policy across centers, we advocate for (1) more oversight and guidance in directing patients to the ECD list who stand to benefit the most from receipt of an ECD kidney; and (2) enhanced transparency of center‐level ECD consent and listing practices. More uniform implementation of ECD policy could improve efficiency and effectiveness of deceased donor kidney allocation without deleteriously impacting equity.     

Listing for Expanded Criteria Donor Kidneys in Older Adults and Those with Predicted Benefit

Certain patient groups are predicted to derive significant survival benefit from transplantation with expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. An algorithm published in 2005 by Merion and colleagues characterizes this group: older adults, diabetics and registrants at centers with long waiting times. Our goal was to evaluate ECD listing practice patterns in the United States in terms of these characteristics. We reviewed 142 907 first‐time deceased donor kidney registrants reported to United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) between 2003 and 2008. Of registrants predicted to benefit from ECD transplantation according to the Merion algorithm ('ECD‐benefit'), 49.8% were listed for ECD offers ('ECD‐willing'), with proportions ranging from 0% to 100% by transplant center. In contrast, 67.6% of adults over the age of 65 years were ECD‐willing, also ranging from 0% to 100% by center. In multivariate models, neither diabetes nor center waiting time was significantly associated with ECD‐willingness in any subgroup. From the time of initial registration, irrespective of eventual transplantation, ECD‐willingness was associated with a significant adjusted survival advantage in the ECD‐benefit group (HR for death 0.88, p < 0.001) and in older adults (HR 0.89, p < 0.001), but an increased mortality in non‐ECD‐benefit registrants (HR 1.11, p < 0.001). In conclusion, ECD listing practices are widely varied and not consistent with published recommendations, a pattern that may disenfranchise certain transplant registrants.     

Impact of the expanded criteria donor allocation system on candidates for and recipients of expanded criteria donor kidneys

BACKGROUND: A national policy to allocate kidneys from expanded criteria donors (ECD) took effect October 31, 2002. METHODS: To assess its impact, we analyzed data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for ECD kidney candidates and recipients between November 1999 and October 2005. RESULTS: The likelihood of being listed for ECD transplant, of receiving any transplant, and of receiving an ECD transplant were assessed using logistic regression models. As of October 31, 2005, 42.6% of candidates were listed with an ECD designation (range by donation service area [DSA], 1.9% to 94.9%). ECD-listed candidates were likely to be older, diabetic, and sensitized. By October 31, 2005, candidates listed for ECD as of November 1, 2002 were 41% more likely to receive any kidney transplant than those not ECD-listed. Among ECD-listed recipients, 30.1% received an ECD transplant and 69.9% a non-ECD transplant. Recipients more likely to receive an ECD transplant were significantly older and in DSAs where a high percentage of ECD transplants were performed and/or a low percentage of candidates were ECD-listed. CONCLUSIONS: A large, regionally variable fraction of candidates are opting to receive ECD offers. Listing with an ECD designation increases the likelihood of transplantation in selected populations. Selective listing of ECD candidates is associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an ECD transplant.     

Secondary Listing for Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation Does Not Increase Likelihood of Engraftment at a Large Transplant Center

The supply of donor organs has not increased as fast as has the number of patients awaiting kidney transplantation. Few organs are shared outside the areas of recovery. This trend has caused some ESRD patients to seek listing at multiple centers. We examined UNOS registry data and transplant registry data at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) for the 576 patients listed at multiple centers over an 8-year span ending December 31, 2005. We identified 72 multilisted patients who received a deceased-donor renal allograft at UAB and reviewed their records for demographics, HLA matching and transfer of listing time. The only predictors for transplantation at UAB were initial listing at UAB or transfer of waiting time. Fifty-one of the 72 patients had listed at UAB first; the other 21 had transferred waiting time. None of the 176 patients who listed elsewhere first and did not transfer waiting time had been transplanted at UAB. Aggregate cost of listing and evaluation for the 176 patients listed elsewhere first who did not transfer waiting time was $1 254 528. Secondary listing at UAB, with a large cohort awaiting transplantation, without transfer of waiting time from another center was an expensive and futile process.     

Impact of the expanded criteria donor allocation system on the use of expanded criteria donor kidneys

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently implemented a policy allocating expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys by waiting time alone. ECD kidneys were defined as having a risk of graft failure > or = 1.7 times that of ideal donors. ECDs include any donor > or = 60 years old and donors 50 to 59 years old with at least two of the following: terminal creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, history of hypertension, or death by cerebrovascular accident. The impact of this policy on use of ECD kidneys is assessed. METHODS: The authors compared use of ECD kidneys recovered in the 18 months immediately before and after policy implementation. Differences were tested using t test and chi2 analyses. RESULTS: There was an 18.3% increase in ECD kidney recoveries and a 15.0% increase in ECD kidney transplants in the first 18 months after policy implementation. ECD kidneys made up 22.1% of all recovered kidneys and 16.8% of all transplants, compared with 18.8% (P<0.001) and 14.5% (P<0.001), respectively, in the prior period. The discard rate was unchanged. The median relative risk (RR) for graft failure for transplanted ECD kidneys was 2.07 versus 1.99 in the prepolicy period (P=not significant); the median RR for procured ECD kidneys was unchanged at 2.16. The percentage of transplanted ECD kidneys with cold ischemia times (CIT) <12 hr increased significantly; the corresponding percentage for CIT > or = 24 hr decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The recent increase in ECD kidney recoveries and transplants appears to be related to implementation of the ECD allocation system.     

Patient and graft outcomes from deceased kidney donors age 70 years and older: an analysis of the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database

BACKGROUND: The organ shortage has resulted in more use of older deceased donor kidneys. Data are limited on the impact of donor aged 70 years and older on transplant outcomes. We examined patient and graft outcomes of renal transplant from expanded criteria donors (ECDs) aged 70 years and older, using the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database. METHODS: We identified 601 deceased donor transplants from donors older than 70 years from 2000 to 2005. The follow-up time was until May 2007. Allograft and patient survival were compared between recipients of transplants from older ECDs (age > or =70) and younger ECDs (age 50-69). The relative risk of graft loss and patient death were determined using multivariate models. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risks of overall graft loss (hazards ratio [HR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.58), death-censored graft loss (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.61), and patient death (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.15-1.64) were greater among recipients of transplants from older ECD kidneys. The relative risk of patient death was lower when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60 compared with recipients aged 41 to 60. In contrast, the relative risk of death-censored graft loss was not increased when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60. CONCLUSIONS: Transplants from older ECD kidneys are associated with a higher risk of graft loss and patient death. The risk was highest when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients younger than 60 years.     

The expanded criteria donor dilemma in cadaveric renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney transplants are known to be superior to dialysis but inferior to transplant with a standard donor. Because of recent policy changes, ECD kidneys will be offered only to patients who have agreed to consider such an organ in advance. There is wide variation in opinion concerning the composition of ECD wait lists. However, the relative benefits of accepting an ECD versus waiting for a standard donor have not been quantified. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to determine when an individual patient should accept or reject an offer of an ECD kidney to optimize their personal expected quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Input variables were estimated from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) database using a sample of 35,030 recipients. RESULTS: Recipients of ECD kidneys waited 77 days longer for transplant than recipients of standard donors. The average patient could wait 3.2 years longer, in addition to the time they have already waited, for a standard donor than an ECD and expect equivalent QALYs. Selected subsets revealed differences in wait times that equated QALYs for ECD and standard donors: African American, 4.4 years; age under 30, 4.0 years; age over 60, 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Existing policy is likely to be in the best interests of only certain sets of patients awaiting cadaveric kidney transplantation unless ECDs dramatically reduce expected waiting for transplantation. This is most possible in elderly patients because of the short wait-time reduction required to make ECDs beneficial. Data reported here have been supplied by the USRDS. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US Government. The data and analyses reported in the 2001 Annual Report of the United States Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients have been supplied by the United Network for Organ Sharing and University Renal Research and Education Association under contract with Health and Human Services. The authors alone are responsible for reporting and interpreting of these data.     

Intermediate-term outcomes with expanded criteria deceased donors in kidney transplantation: a spectrum or specter of quality?

OBJECTIVE: To compare intermediate-term outcomes in adult recipients of expanded criteria (ECD) versus concurrent standard criteria (SCD) deceased donor kidney transplants at a single center using a standardized approach. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Expanded criteria donors (ECDs) are a source of kidneys that increase the donor organ pool, but the value of transplanting these kidneys has been questioned because of concerns regarding diminished survival and predicted poorer intermediate-term outcomes. METHODS: Over a 47-month period, we performed 244 deceased donor kidney transplants into adult recipients, including 143 from SCDs and 101 from ECDs. Management algorithms were implemented to preserve nephron function, and recipient selection for an ECD kidney transplant was based on low immunologic risk. All patients received depleting antibody induction in combination with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. A total of 188 patients (77%) had at least a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: ECDs were older, had a higher BMI, had an increased incidence of cerebrovascular brain death and preexisting donor hypertension, and had a lower estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl, all P < 0.01) compared with SCDs. Cold ischemic times were similar between groups, but more ECD kidneys were preserved with pulsatile perfusion (P < 0.01). ECD kidney recipients were older, less sensitized, had a lower BMI, had fewer 0-antigen mismatches, and had a shorter waiting time (all P < 0.01) compared with SCD kidney recipients. Actual patient (93%) and kidney graft (83%) survival rates were similar between groups with a mean follow-up of 24 months. The rates of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, readmissions, operative complications, major infections, and resource utilization were comparable between groups. Renal function followed longitudinally was consistently better in SCD patients (P < 0.05). Black recipients had higher rates of DGF, acute rejection, and graft loss (P < 0.05), but the effects were less pronounced in the ECD group. CONCLUSIONS: By appropriate donor and recipient profiling and the use of management algorithms to project and protect renal function, excellent intermediate-term outcomes can be achieved with ECD kidney transplants that are comparable to SCD kidney transplants.     

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.     

A new allocation plan for renal transplantation

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

Impact of cold ischemia time on graft survival among ECD transplant recipients: a paired kidney analysis

Delays in expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney placement increases cold ischemia times (CIT) potentially leading to discard. The effect of increased CIT on ECD kidney transplant outcomes is unknown. We evaluated paired ECD kidneys (derived from the same donor transplanted to different recipients) from the SRTR registry transplanted between 1995 and 2009 (n = 17,514). To test the effect of CIT, we excluded paired transplants with the same CIT (n = 3286). Of 14,230 recipients (7115 donors) the median difference in CIT was 5 h (Q1 = 3 h, Q3 = 9 h). Delayed graft function (DGF) was significantly more likely between pairs with greater CIT (35% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) including substantially higher rates for CIT differences ≥ 15 h (42%). Overall graft loss was not significantly different between recipients with higher CIT relative to paired donor recipients with lower CIT (p = 0.47) or for pairs with differences of 1-3 h (p = 0.90), 4-9 h (p = 0.41), 10-14 h (p = 0.36) or ≥ 15 h (p = 0.10). Results were consistent in multivariable models adjusted for recipient factors. Although increasing cold ischemia time is a risk factor for DGF among ECD kidney transplants, there is no effect on graft survival which may suggest an important utility for donor kidneys that may not currently be considered viable.     

Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation: quality control and results

Although the number of kidneys from expanded criteria deceased donors (ECDs) is growing in most transplant centers, the limits for acceptance of these kidneys and the safety standards have still not been fully established. We evaluated 342 kidney transplants performed between January 1999 and December 2004. In 77 (22.5%) of these, the kidneys were from ECDs, that is, donors age >60 years and with one of the following characteristics: hypertension, death due to cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <70 mL/min. The results of the ECD transplants were compared with 265 transplants during the same period from standard donors (SDs), that is, donors age <60 years and GFR > 70 mL/min. All the ECD kidneys underwent biopsy and were accepted for transplantation only if the score was <7. The ECDs (66.5 +/- 4.3 years) in comparison with the SDs (48.0 +/- 16.0 years) had a greater frequency of death due to CVA (94.8% vs 49.8%) and a lower GFR (80.4 +/- 25.0 vs 111 +/- 41.6 mL/min; P < .05). Of the ECDs, 97.4% had a history of hypertension versus 24.3% of the SDs. Kidney biopsies were performed in 116 SD kidneys because the donor age was >55 years or there was a history of hypertension. The median score for the kidney biopsies of the ECD kidneys was 3 versus 2 for the SD kidneys. Graft survival was not significantly different until the fifth year. The GFR at 12 months was significantly different (SDs, 58.0 +/- 22.7 vs ECDs, 48.9 +/- 16.5 mL/min; P < .05). Although the GFR in the ECD kidneys was lower than that of the SD kidneys, it could still be adequate for recipients older than 50 years of age. Accordingly, the acceptance criteria for ECD kidneys based mainly on the kidney biopsy score and donor GFR benefit the recipients.     

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

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

Lengthy Cold Ischemia Time Is a Modifiable Risk Factor Associated With Low Glomerular Filtration Rates in Expanded Criteria Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients

The proportion of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys transplanted in North America is steadily increasing. By definition, graft survival is shorter for ECD than standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys. Seeking to identify factors associated with low posttransplant glomerular filtration rates (GFR), we retrospectively reviewed data on 390 consecutive patients transplanted in our center from January 1999 to December 2006 including 78% SCD and 22% ECD by UNOS criteria. We analyzed donor and patient characteristics, HLA mismatches, cold ischemia time (CIT) and delayed graft function (DGF). Pulsatile perfusion was not used. The average CIT was 14.6 hours for all SCD and ECD cases. All patients received thymoglobulin, a calcineurin inhibitor, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. The only factor associated with low estimated GFR in the entire ECD cohort was CIT. The average CIT for the ECD group was 18.3 hours, whereas it was only 13.6 hours for those in the SCD group (P < .001). We observed that at 6 months posttransplant, those in the ECD group are 2.2 times more likely (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.065–4.654; P = .033) to have an estimated GFR ≤50 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with those in the SCD group for CIT up to 18 hours. The higher odds ratio for low estimated GFR was sustained at 3 years posttransplant. In our center, a lengthy CIT was an early risk factor associated with impaired renal function. We concluded that all efforts should be made to reduce CIT.     

Expanded criteria donors: process and outcomes

Expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are transplantable deceased donor (DD) kidneys for which the average patient, graft survival, and renal function are inferior when compared to standard criteria DD kidneys. Although the term ECD kidneys has been used since the early 1990s to describe kidneys with various characteristics associated with poorer outcomes, the concept has been formally implemented in U.S. organ allocation. A DD kidney is considered to be an ECD organ if the estimated adjusted risk of graft failure is > or = 70% (RR > or = 1.70) compared to DD kidneys with standard characteristics of transplant suitability. The donor characteristics that define an ECD kidney include age > or = 60 years, or age 50-59 years plus two of the following: cerebrovascular accident as the cause of death, preexisting hypertension, or terminal serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dl. In the aggregate, recipients of ECD kidneys have improved survival compared to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Patient survival is 5% lower at 1 year and 8-12% lower at 3-5 years for ECD kidney recipients. Adjusted graft survival in ECD kidneys is 8% lower at 1 year and 15-20% lower at 3-5 years after transplantation compared to standard criteria donor kidneys. However, patients less than 40 years of age, African Americans, Asians for whom the median waiting time is less than 1350 days receive no survival benefit from ECD kidney transplantation. Informed choice by the potential recipient is a prominent feature of the allocation policy regarding ECD kidneys. Since there are recipient characteristics associated with no survival benefit following ECD transplantation, nephrologists who refer patients for kidney transplantation should be familiar with the combination of donor and recipient factors that are likely to yield detrimental results.     

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

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

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.     

Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation in the United States, 1996–2005

Kidney and pancreas transplantation in 2005 improved in quantity and outcome quality, despite the increasing average age of kidney graft recipients, with 56% aged 50 or older. Geography and ABO blood type contribute to the discrepancy in waiting time among the deceased donor (DD) candidates. Allocation policy changes are decreasing the median times to transplant for pediatric recipients. Overall, 6% more DD kidney transplants were performed in 2005 with slight increases in standard criteria donors (SCD) and expanded criteria donors (ECD). The largest increase (39%) was in donation after cardiac death (DCD) from non‐ECD donors. These DCD, non‐ECD kidneys had equivalent outcomes to SCD kidneys. 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year unadjusted graft survival was 91%, 80% and 70% for non‐ECD‐DD transplants, 82%, 68% and 53% for ECD‐DD grafts, and 95%, 88% and 80% for living donor kidney transplants. In 2005, 27% of patients were discharged without steroids compared to 3% in 1999. Acute rejection decreased to 11% in 2004. There was a slight increase in the number of simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplants (895), with fewer pancreas after kidney transplants (343 from 419 in 2004), and a stable number of pancreas alone transplants (129). Pancreas underutilization appears to be an ongoing issue.     

Major Variation across Local Transplant Centers in Probability of Kidney Transplant for Wait-Listed Patients

BackgroundGeographic disparities in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation persist in the United States under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transplantation for wait-listed patients remains unclear.MethodsTo compare probability of transplantation across centers nationally and within donation service areas (DSAs), we conducted a registry study that included all United States incident adult kidney transplant candidates wait listed in 2011 and 2015 (pre-KAS and post-KAS cohorts comprising 32,745 and 34,728 individuals, respectively). For each center, we calculated the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation within 3 years of wait listing using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list removal as competing events. We examined associations between center-level and DSA-level characteristics and the adjusted probability of transplant.ResultsCandidates received deceased donor kidney transplants within 3 years of wait listing more frequently post-KAS (22%) than pre-KAS (19%). Nationally, the probability of transplant varied 16-fold between centers, ranging from 4.0% to 64.2% in the post-KAS era. Within DSAs, we observed a median 2.3-fold variation between centers, with up to ten-fold and 57.4 percentage point differences. Probability of transplantation was correlated in the post-KAS cohort with center willingness to accept hard-to-place kidneys (r=0.55, P<0.001) and local organ supply (r=0.44, P<0.001).ConclusionsLarge differences in the adjusted probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation persist under KAS, even between centers working with the same local organ supply. Probability of transplantation is significantly associated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater understanding of how centers make decisions about organs offered to wait-listed patients and how they relate to disparities in access to transplantation.     

OPTN/SRTR 2019 Annual Data Report: Kidney

Despite the ongoing severe shortage of available kidney grafts relative to candidates in need, data from 2019 reveal some promising trends. After remaining relatively stagnant for many years, the number of kidney transplants has increased each year since 2015, reaching the highest annual count to date of 24,273 in 2019. The number of patients waiting for a kidney transplant in the United States was relatively stable, despite an increase in the number of new candidates added in 2019 and a decrease in patients removed from the waiting list owing to death or deteriorating medical condition. However, these encouraging trends are tempered by ongoing challenges. Nationwide, only a quarter of waitlisted patients receive a deceased-donor kidney transplant within 5 years, and this proportion varies dramatically by donation service area, from 15.5% to 67.8%. The non-utilization (discard) rate of recovered organs remains at 20.1%, despite adramatic decline in the discard of organs from hepatitis C-positive donors. Non-utilization rates remain particularly high for Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥85% kidneys and kidneys from which a biopsy specimen was obtained. While the number of living-donor transplants increased again in 2019, only a small proportion of the waiting list receives living-donor transplants each year, and racial disparities in living-donor transplant access persist. As both graft and patient survival continue to improve incrementally, the total number of living kidney transplant recipients with a functioning graft is anticipated to exceed 250,000 in the next 1-2 years. Over the past decade, the total number of pediatric kidney transplants performed has remained stable. Despite numerous efforts, living donor kidney transplant remains low among pediatric recipients with continued racial disparities among recipients. Congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract remain the leading cause of kidney disease. While most deceased donor recipients receive a kidney from a donor with KDPI less than 35%, the majority of pediatric recipients had four or more HLA mismatches. Graft survival continues to improve with superior outcomes for living donor recipients.