Background Obesity is increasingly common in kidney transplant candidates and may limit access to transplantation. Obesity and diabetes are associated with a high risk for post-transplant complications. The best approach to weight loss to facilitate active transplant listing is unknown, but bariatric surgery is rarely considered due to patient- and physician-related apprehension, among other factors. Methods We aimed to determine the magnitude of weight loss, listing, and transplant rates in 28 candidates with a mean BMI of 44.4±4.6 kg/m 2 and diabetes treated conservatively for 1 year post weight-loss consultations (group 1). Additionally, we evaluated 15 patients (group 2) who met the inclusion criteria but received bariatric intervention within the same time frame. All patients completed a multidisciplinary weight management consultation with at least 1 year of follow-up. Results In the conservatively managed group (group 1), the mean weight at the time of initial consultation was 126.5±18.5 kg, and the mean BMI was 44.4±4.6 kg/m 2 . At 1 year post weight-loss consultation, the mean weight decreased by 4.4±8.2 kg to 122.9±17 kg, and the mean BMI was 43±4.8 kg/m 2 , with a total mean body weight decrease of 3% ( P =0.01). Eighteen patients (64%) did not progress to become candidates for active listing/transplantation during the follow-up time of 4±2.9 years, with 15 (54%) subsequently developing renal failure/diabetes-related comorbidities prohibitive for transplantation. In contrast, mean total body weight decreased by 19% at 6 months post bariatric surgery, and the mean BMI was 34.2±4 and 32.5±3.7 kg/m 2 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Bariatric surgery was strongly associated with subsequent kidney transplantation (HR=8.39 [95% CI 1.71 to 41.19]; P =0.009). Conclusions A conservative weight-loss approach involving multidisciplinary consultation was ineffective in most kidney transplant candidates with diabetes, suggesting that a more proactive approach is needed.
Renal function outcomes and kidney biopsy features of living kidney donors with hypertension
AbstractBackgroundThe medium‐ to long‐term outcomes of living kidney donors with hypertension compared to normotensive donors are not well understood, especially with the recent changes in hypertension guidelines.MethodsWe studied a cohort of 950 living kidney donors using different definitions of hypertension based on either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg thresholds and based on either office or ambulatory blood pressure readings. Microstructural features on kidney biopsy at the time of donation were compared using different definitions of hypertension.ResultsAfter adjusting for years of follow‐up, age, sex, and baseline eGFR, hypertension (by any definition) did not significantly predict an eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 at a median follow‐up of 10 years postdonation, though there was a borderline association with ambulatory blood pressure ≥ 130/80 mmHg predicting a 40% decline in eGFR (OR = 1.53, 1.00–2.36; p = .051). Proteinuria was predicted by office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg and by nondipper profile on nocturnal ambulatory blood pressure measurements. At the time of donation, larger glomeruli and arterial hyalinosis on biopsy were associated with hypertension defined by either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg (by office or ambulatory measurements). Nocturnal nondipper status was associated with larger glomeruli size but not arteriolar hyalinosis when compared to dippers.ConclusionsIn programs that accept donors with controlled hypertension, various definitions of hypertension are associated with histological findings in the donated kidney, but none predict a clinically significant decline in kidney function 10 years after donation. These data support allowing healthy individuals with controlled hypertension to donate a kidney. However, donors with office hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and nondippers (regardless of hypertension status) are at greater long‐term risk for proteinuria, and particularly for these donors, longer follow‐up is warranted.
Kidney Structural Features from Living Donors Predict Graft Failure in the Recipient
Significance Statement The quality of a kidney obtained from a living donor is often inferred from the donor’s age, risk factors, and kidney function. Little is known about the influence of a donated kidney’s structural features on the risk of death-censored graft failure in the recipient. In an analysis of 2293 kidney donor-recipient pairs, the authors identified subclinical nephrosclerosis, larger nephron size (but not nephron number), and smaller medullary volume as structural predictors of death-censored graft failure that were independent of both donor and recipient clinical characteristics. These findings provide important insights into the factors that define the “intrinsic quality” of the living kidney donor graft at the time of donation, and support use of intraoperative biopsies to identify donor kidneys that are at higher risk for failure. Background Nephrosclerosis, nephron size, and nephron number vary among kidneys transplanted from living donors. However, whether these structural features predict kidney transplant recipient outcomes is unclear. Methods Our study used computed tomography (CT) and implantation biopsy to investigate donated kidney features as predictors of death-censored graft failure at three transplant centers participating in the Aging Kidney Anatomy study. We used global glomerulosclerosis, interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy, artery luminal stenosis, and arteriolar hyalinosis to measure nephrosclerosis; mean glomerular volume, cortex volume per glomerulus, and mean cross-sectional tubular area to measure nephron size; and calculations from CT cortical volume and glomerular density on biopsy to assess nephron number. We also determined the death-censored risk of graft failure with each structural feature after adjusting for the predictive clinical characteristics of donor and recipient. Results The analysis involved 2293 donor-recipient pairs. Mean recipient follow-up was 6.3 years, during which 287 death-censored graft failures and 424 deaths occurred. Factors that predicted death-censored graft failure independent of both donor and recipient clinical characteristics included interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy, larger cortical nephron size (but not nephron number), and smaller medullary volume. In a subset with 12 biopsy section slides, arteriolar hyalinosis also predicted death-censored graft failure. Conclusions Subclinical nephrosclerosis, larger cortical nephron size, and smaller medullary volume in healthy donors modestly predict death-censored graft failure in the recipient, independent of donor or recipient clinical characteristics. These findings provide insights into a graft’s “intrinsic quality” at the time of donation, and further support the use of intraoperative biopsies to identify kidney grafts that are at higher risk for failure.
Ten Years of Kidney Paired Donation at Mayo Clinic: The Benefits of Incorporating ABO/HLA Compatible Pairs
Background. We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time. Methods. We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018. Results. The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs. Conclusions. KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.