Stewart, Darren

Abstract Introduction Significant center‐to‐center variation in attitudes and management of delayed graft function (DGF) remains common. Methods A survey to describe current DGF practices was developed by workgroup members sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and was distributed to both the NKF DGF workgroup members, kidney transplant program directors and the transplant community within the United States and Canada. Seventy‐one percent of NKF workgroup members completed the survey along with 70 unique the United States and three Canadian kidney transplant programs. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions were represented. Results DGF was reported to occur at rate of 20%–40% for most centers with 3.9% indicating their incidence to be >60%. Most centers reported longer hospital lengths of stay and more frequent outpatient visits. Despite the commonality of DGF, only half of centers reported having an established protocol to manage DGF. Kidney allograft biopsies were the only consistent DGF management strategy observed, although use of machine perfusion was also heavily favored. Other DGF management strategies voiced by a minority included having established outpatient practices to care for DGF patients and administering outpatient community‐based hemodialysis. Conclusion Although approximately a third of survey responders indicated that risk of DGF played a role in their willingness to accept organs, most did not feel that increased cost or clinical impact on outcomes was a deterrent. Future strategies, including broader sharing of best practices, redefining terminology specific to DGF, the establishment of DGF dialysis guidelines and improving access to machine perfusion across OPOs may help reduce discard and improve utilization of kidneys at risk for DGF.

Background The use of procurement biopsies for assessing kidney quality has been implicated as a driver of the nearly 20% kidney discard rate in the United States. Yet in some contexts, biopsies may boost clinical confidence, enabling acceptance of kidneys that would otherwise be discarded. We leveraged a novel organ offer simulation platform to conduct a controlled experiment isolating biopsy effects on offer acceptance decisions. Methods Between November 26 and December 14, 2018, 41 kidney transplant surgeons and 27 transplant nephrologists each received the same 20 hypothetical kidney offers using a crossover design with weekend “washout” periods. Mini-study 1 included four, low serum creatinine (<1.5 mg/dl) donor offers with arguably “poor” biopsy findings that were based on real offers that were accepted with successful 3-year recipient outcome. For each of the four offers, two experimental variants—no biopsy and “good” biopsy—were also sent. Mini-study 2 included four AKI offers with no biopsy, each having an offer variant with “good” biopsy findings. Results Among low serum creatinine donor offers, we found approximately threefold higher odds of acceptance when arguably poor biopsy findings were hidden or replaced with good biopsy findings. Among AKI donor offers, we found nearly fourfold higher odds of acceptance with good biopsy findings compared with no biopsy. Biopsy information had profound but variable effects on decision making: more participants appeared to have been influenced by biopsies to rule out, versus rule in, transplantable kidneys. Conclusions The current use of biopsies in the United States appears skewed toward inducing kidney discard. Several areas for improvement, including reducing variation in offer acceptance decisions and more accurate interpretation of findings, have the potential to make better use of scarce, donated organs. Offer simulation studies are a viable research tool for understanding decision making and identifying ways to improve the transplant system.