Jadlowiec, Caroline

AbstractDual kidney transplantation (DKT), utilizing two adult kidneys from the same donor for one recipient, has been used as a way to expand the available donor pool. These kidneys often come from high Kidney Donor Profile Index donors (KDPI > 85%). Data comparing outcomes between high KDPI DKT and single kidney transplants (SKT) remain limited. We assessed outcomes of 336 high KDPI kidney transplants performed at our center; 11.0% (n = 37) were DKT. Recipients of DKT were older (P = .02) and donors had a higher KDPI score (median 96% vs. 91%, P < .0001). DKT operative time was higher compared to SKT (+1.4 hours, P < .0001). There were no differences in delayed graft function (54.1% vs. 51.5%, P = .77) and hospital length of stay (median 4.0 vs. 3.0 days, P = .21) between DKT and SKT. Grade I Clavien‐Dindo complications occurred in 8.1% of DKT and 13.7% of SKT (P = .008). There were no grade IVa, IVb, or V complications in either group. DKT had more glomerulosclerosis (P = .04), interstitial fibrosis (P = .02), tubular atrophy (P = .01), and arterial thickening (P = .03) on 1‐year protocol biopsies. Estimated glomerular filtration was higher for DKT at 1‐ (P = .004) and 2‐years post‐transplant (P = .01). There were no differences in patient (HR 1.3, 95% CI .5‐3.3, P = .58) or graft (HR 1.1, 95% CI .5‐2.3, P = .83) survival. Good outcomes can be achieved with DKT using high KDPI kidneys with moderate chronic changes. DKT is a good option to help further utilize high KDPI kidneys and minimize discard.

Background: There have been concerns regarding increased perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, and rates of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients with functional limitations. The application of machine learning consensus clustering approach may provide a novel understanding of unique phenotypes of functionally limited kidney transplant recipients with distinct outcomes in order to identify strategies to improve outcomes. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 3205 functionally limited kidney transplant recipients (Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) < 40% at transplant) in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Posttransplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection were compared among the clusters Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified two distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status prior to transplant. Cluster 1 patients were older in age and were more likely to receive deceased donor kidney transplant with a higher number of HLA mismatches. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were younger, had shorter dialysis duration, were more likely to be retransplants, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants from HLA mismatched donors. As such, cluster 2 recipients had a higher PRA, less cold ischemia time, and lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys. Despite having a low KPS, 5-year patient survival was 79.1 and 83.9% for clusters 1 and 2; 5-year death-censored graft survival was 86.9 and 91.9%. Cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and patient survival but higher acute rejection, compared to cluster 2. Conclusion: Our study used an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status into two clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes.

Abstract Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non‐TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow‐up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent‐free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re‐LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98–4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.

AbstractBackgroundCenters discard high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) allografts, potentially related to delayed graft function and prolonged hospital use by kidney transplant recipients (KTR). We sought to determine whether high KDPI KTRs have excess health care utilization.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study from a high‐volume center analyzing KTRs from January 3, 2011 to April 12, 2015 (n = 652). We measured differences in hospital use, emergency visits, and outpatient visits within the first 90 days between low (≤85%) versus high KDPI (>85%) KTRs, as well as long‐term graft function and patient survival.ResultsHigh (n = 107) and low KDPI (n = 545) KTRs had similar length of stay (median = 3 days, P = .66), and readmission rates at 7, 30, and 90 days after surgery (all, P > .05). High KDPI kidneys were not associated with excess utilization of the hospital, emergency services, outpatient transplant clinics, or ambulatory infusion visits on univariate or multivariate analysis (all, P > .05). Low KDPI KTRs had significantly better eGFR at 2 years (Low vs. High KDPI: 60.35 vs. 41.54 ml/min, P < .001), but similar 3‐year patient and graft survival (both, P > .09).ConclusionsHigh and low KDPI KTRs demonstrated similar 90‐day risk‐adjusted health care utilization, which should encourage use of high KDPI kidneys.

Background: Black kidney transplant recipients have worse allograft outcomes compared to White recipients. The feature importance and feature interaction network analysis framework of machine learning random forest (RF) analysis may provide an understanding of RF structures to design strategies to prevent acute rejection among Black recipients. Methods: We conducted tree-based RF feature importance of Black kidney transplant recipients in United States from 2015 to 2019 in the UNOS database using the number of nodes, accuracy decrease, gini decrease, times_a_root, p value, and mean minimal depth. Feature interaction analysis was also performed to evaluate the most frequent occurrences in the RF classification run between correlated and uncorrelated pairs. Results: A total of 22,687 Black kidney transplant recipients were eligible for analysis. Of these, 1330 (6%) had acute rejection within 1 year after kidney transplant. Important variables in the RF models for acute rejection among Black kidney transplant recipients included recipient age, ESKD etiology, PRA, cold ischemia time, donor age, HLA DR mismatch, BMI, serum albumin, degree of HLA mismatch, education level, and dialysis duration. The three most frequent interactions consisted of two numerical variables, including recipient age:donor age, recipient age:serum albumin, and recipient age:BMI, respectively. Conclusions: The application of tree-based RF feature importance and feature interaction network analysis framework identified recipient age, ESKD etiology, PRA, cold ischemia time, donor age, HLA DR mismatch, BMI, serum albumin, degree of HLA mismatch, education level, and dialysis duration as important variables in the RF models for acute rejection among Black kidney transplant recipients in the United States.

AbstractBackground and objectivesWe aimed to determine outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT).Materials and methodsA total of 172 recipients received a kidney from donors with acute kidney injury stage 3 (AKIN3) requiring RRT. We compared the study group to 528 recipients who received a kidney from donors with AKIN stage 3 not on RRT and 463 recipients who received < 85% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) AKIN stage 0 kidney.ResultsThe study group donors were younger compared to the 2 control groups. Despite higher DGF in the study group, the length of hospital stay and acute rejection were similar. Death censored graft survival (96% AKIN3‐RRT vs. 97%AKIN3 no RRT vs. 96% KDPI < 85% AKIN0,P = 0.26) and patient survival with functioning graft at 1 year (95% across all groups,P = 0.402) were similar. The estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar across the 3 groups after first month. Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score ≥ 2 on protocol biopsy at time 0, 4 and 12 months were similar. Primary nonfunction was rare and associated with high KDPI.ConclusionsTransplanting selected kidneys from deceased donors with AKIN3 requiring RRT is safe and has good outcomes.

Background: Lower patient survival has been observed in sickle cell disease (SCD) patients who go on to receive a kidney transplant. This study aimed to assess the post-transplant outcomes of SCD kidney transplant recipients in the contemporary era. Methods: We used the OPTN/UNOS database to identify first-time kidney transplant recipients from 2010 through 2019. We compared patient and allograft survival between recipients with SCD (n = 105) vs. all other diagnoses (non-SCD, n = 146,325) as the reported cause of end-stage kidney disease. We examined whether post-transplant outcomes improved among SCD in the recent era (2010–2019), compared to the early era (2000–2009). Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, SCD was significantly associated with lower patient survival (HR 2.87; 95% CI 1.75–4.68) and death-censored graft survival (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.30–3.01), compared to non-SCD recipients. The lower patient survival and death-censored graft survival in SCD recipients were consistently observed in comparison to outcomes of recipients with diabetes, glomerular disease, and hypertension as the cause of end-stage kidney disease. There was no significant difference in death censored graft survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.51–1.73, p = 0.98) and patient survival (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50–1.74, p = 0.82) of SCD recipients in the recent versus early era. Conclusions: Patient and allograft survival in SCD kidney recipients were worse than recipients with other diagnoses. Overall SCD patient and allograft outcomes in the recent era did not improve from the early era. The findings of our study should not discourage kidney transplantation for ESKD patients with SCD due to a known survival benefit of transplantation compared with remaining on dialysis. Urgent future studies are needed to identify strategies to improve patient and allograft survival in SCD kidney recipients. In addition, it may be reasonable to assign risk adjustment for SCD patients.

AbstractKidney transplant (KT) outcomes from high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥85%) donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) remain underreported. KT from 172 high KDPI Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) stage 0‐1 donors and 76 high KDPI AKIN stage 2‐3 donors from a single center were retrospectively assessed. The AKIN 2‐3 cohort had more delayed graft function (71% vs. 37%, p < .001). At one year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (44 ± 17 vs. 46 ± 18, p = .42) or fibrosis on protocol biopsy (ci, p = .85). Donor terminal creatinine (p = .59) and length of delayed graft function (p = .39) did not impact one‐year eGFR. There were more primary nonfunction (PNF) events in the high KDPI AKIN 2‐3 group (5.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .02). With a median follow‐up of 3.8 years, one‐year death‐censored graft failure was 3.5% for AKIN 0‐1 and 14.5% for AKIN 2‐3 (HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.24‐4.63, p = .01). Although AKIN stage 2‐3 high KDPI kidneys had comparable one‐year eGFR to AKIN stage 0‐1 high KDPI kidneys, there were more PNF occurrences and one‐year death‐censored graft survival was reduced. Given these findings, additional precautions should be undertaken when assessing and utilizing kidneys from severe AKI high KDPI donors.

AbstractEarly 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.

Background: Steatotic grafts are increasingly being used for liver transplant (LT); however, the impact of graft steatosis on renal function has not been well described. Methods: A total of 511 allografts from Mayo Clinic Arizona and Minnesota were assessed. We evaluated post-LT acute kidney injury (AKI) patterns, perioperative variables and one-year outcomes for patients receiving moderately steatotic allografts (>30% macrovesicular steatosis, n = 40) and compared them to non-steatotic graft recipients. Results: Post-LT AKI occurred in 52.5% of steatotic graft recipients versus 16.7% in non-steatotic recipients (p < 0.001). Ten percent of steatotic graft recipients required new dialysis post-LT (p = 0.003). At five years, there were no differences for AKI vs. no AKI patient survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.08–10.6, p = 0.95) or allograft survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 0.23–13.23, p = 0.59) for those using steatotic grafts. Lipopeliosis on biopsy was common in those who developed AKI (61.0% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.04), particularly when the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) was ≥20 (88.9%; p = 0.04). Lipopeliosis was a predictor of post-LT AKI (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.1–34.6, p = 0.04). Conclusion: One-year outcomes for moderately steatotic grafts are satisfactory; however, a higher percentage of post-LT AKI and initiation of dialysis can be expected. Presence of lipopeliosis on biopsy appears to be predictive of post-LT AKI.