Cooper, Matthew

ABSTRACTBackgroundDespite many people awaiting kidney transplant, kidney allografts from acute kidney injury (AKI) donors continue to be underutilized. We aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients of AKI kidney allografts using an unsupervised machine learning (ML) approach.MethodsUsing Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network–United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) data, a consensus clustering cohort analysis was performed in 12 356 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients between 2015 and 2019 in whom donors had a terminal serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL. Significant cluster characteristics were determined, and outcomes were compared.ResultsThe median donor terminal creatinine was 2.2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.7–3.3) mg/dL. Cluster analysis was performed on 12 356 AKI kidney recipients, and three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Young, sensitized kidney re‐transplant patients characterized Cluster 1. Cluster 2 was characterized by first‐time kidney transplant patients with hypertensive and diabetic kidney diseases. Older diabetic recipients characterized Cluster 3. Clusters 1 and 2 donors were young and met standard kidney donor profile index (KDPI) criteria; Cluster 3 donors were older, more likely to have hypertension or diabetes, and meet high KDPI criteria. Cluster 1 had a higher risk of acute rejection, 3‐year patient death, and graft failure. Cluster 3 had a higher risk of death‐censored graft failure, patient death, and graft failure at 1 and 3 years. Cluster 2 had the best patient‐, graft‐, and death‐censored graft survival at 1 and 3 years. Compared to non‐AKI kidney recipients, the AKI clusters showed a higher incidence of delayed graft function (DGF, AKI: 43.2%, 41.7%, 45.3% vs. non‐AKI: 25.5%); however, there were comparable long‐term outcomes specific to death‐censored graft survival (AKI: 93.6%, 93.4%, 90.4% vs. non‐AKI: 92.3%), patient survival (AKI: 89.1%, 93.2%, 84.2% vs. non‐AKI: 91.2%), and overall graft survival (AKI: 84.7%, 88.2%, 79.0% vs. non‐AKI: 86.0%).ConclusionsIn this unsupervised ML approach study, AKI recipient clusters demonstrated differing, but good clinical outcomes, suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase kidney utilization from AKI donors.

AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to cluster deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) using an unsupervised machine learning approach.MethodsWe performed consensus cluster analysis on 11 615 deceased donor kidney transplant patients with CIT exceeding 24 h using OPTN/UNOS data from 2015 to 2019. Cluster characteristics of clinical significance were identified, and post‐transplant outcomes were compared.ResultsConsensus cluster analysis identified two clinically distinct clusters. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, non‐diabetic patients who received kidney transplants from young, non‐hypertensive, non‐ECD deceased donors with lower KDPI scores. In contrast, the patients in cluster 2 were older and more likely to have diabetes. Cluster 2 recipients were more likely to receive transplants from older donors with a higher KDPI. There was lower use of machine perfusion in Cluster 1 and incrementally longer CIT in Cluster 2. Cluster 2 had a higher incidence of delayed graft function (42% vs. 29%), and lower 1‐year patient (95% vs. 98%) and death‐censored (95% vs. 97%) graft survival compared to Cluster 1.ConclusionsUnsupervised machine learning characterized deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged CIT into two clusters with differing outcomes. Although Cluster 1 had more favorable recipient and donor characteristics and better survival, the outcomes observed in Cluster 2 were also satisfactory. Overall, both clusters demonstrated good survival suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase CIT.

Clinical outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplants coming from diabetic donors currently remain inconsistent, possibly due to high heterogeneities in this population. Our study aimed to cluster recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants using an unsupervised machine learning approach in order to identify subgroups with high risk of inferior outcomes and potential variables associated with these outcomes. Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7876 recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between the clusters. Consensus cluster analysis identified three clinically distinct clusters. Recipients in cluster 1 (n = 2903) were characterized by oldest age (64 ± 8 years), highest rate of comorbid diabetes mellitus (55%). They were more likely to receive kidney allografts from donors that were older (58 ± 6.3 years), had hypertension (89%), met expanded criteria donor (ECD) status (78%), had a high rate of cerebrovascular death (63%), and carried a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Recipients in cluster 2 (n = 687) were younger (49 ± 13 years) and all were re-transplant patients with higher panel reactive antibodies (PRA) (88 [IQR 46, 98]) who received kidneys from younger (44 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (88%) with low numbers of HLA mismatch (4 [IQR 2, 5]). The cluster 3 cohort was characterized by first-time kidney transplant recipients (100%) who received kidney allografts from younger (42 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (98%). Compared to cluster 3, cluster 1 had higher incidence of primary non-function, delayed graft function, patient death and death-censored graft failure, whereas cluster 2 had higher incidence of delayed graft function and death-censored graft failure but comparable primary non-function and patient death. An unsupervised machine learning approach characterized diabetic donor kidney transplant patients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing outcomes. Our data highlight opportunities to improve utilization of high KDPI kidneys coming from diabetic donors in recipients with survival-limiting comorbidities such as those observed in cluster 1.

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.

AbstractIntroductionIn October 2021, the American Society of Transplantation (AST) hosted a virtual consensus conference aimed at identifying and addressing barriers to the broader, safe expansion of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) throughout the United States (US).MethodsA multidisciplinary group of LDLT experts convened to address issues related to financial implications on the donor, transplant center crisis management, regulatory and oversight policies, and ethical considerations by assessing the relative significance of issues in preventing LDLT growth, with proposed strategies to overcome barriers.ResultsLiving liver donors endure multiple obstacles including financial instability, loss of job security, and potential morbidity. These concerns, along with other center, state, and federal specific policies can be perceived as significant barriers to expanding LDLT. Donor safety is of paramount importance to the transplant community; however, regulatory and oversight policies aimed at ensuring donor safety can be viewed as ambiguous and complicated leading to time‐consuming evaluations that may deter donor motivation and program expansion.ConclusionTransplant programs need to establish appropriate crisis management plans to mitigate potential negative donor outcomes and ensure program viability and stability. Finally, ethical aspects, including informed consent for high‐risk recipients and use of non‐directed donors, can be perceived as additional barriers to expanding LDLT.

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.

AbstractBackgroundOur study aimed to characterize kidney retransplant recipients using an unsupervised machine‐learning approach.MethodsWe performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient‐, donor‐, and transplant‐related characteristics in 17 443 kidney retransplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes, including death‐censored graft failure and patient death among the assigned clustersResultsConsensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters of kidney retransplant recipients. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and were less sensitized. They were most likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant and more likely to be preemptive (30%) or need ≤1 year of dialysis (32%). In contrast, cluster 2 recipients were the most sensitized (median PRA 95%). They were more likely to have been on dialysis >1 year, and receive a nationally allocated, low HLA mismatch, standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be minorities (37% Black; 15% Hispanic). They were moderately sensitized with a median PRA of 87% and were also most likely to have been on dialysis >1 year. They received locally allocated high HLA mismatch kidneys from standard KDPI deceased donors. Thymoglobulin was the most commonly used induction agent for all three clusters. Cluster 1 had the most favorable patient and graft survival, while cluster 3 had the worst patient and graft survival.ConclusionThe use of an unsupervised machine learning approach characterized kidney retransplant recipients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes. Recipients with moderate allosensitization, such as those represented in cluster 3, are perhaps more disadvantaged in the kidney retransplantation process. Potential opportunities for improvement specific to these re‐transplant recipients include working to improve opportunities to improve access to living donor kidney transplantation, living donor paired exchange and identifying strategies for better HLA matching.

AbstractWell‐selected patients with kidney disease and diabetes mellitus who undergo simultaneous kidney‐pancreas transplantation often experience dramatic improvements in quality of life and long‐term survival compared to those who remain on medical therapy. Over the past several years the importance of frailty in the pancreas transplant candidate and recipient populations has grown. More patients with advanced age have entered the waitlist, and complications from prolonged diabetes, even in younger patients, have created increased evidence of risk for frailty. Given these concerns, and the broad challenges facing pancreas transplantation volumes overall, we generated this review to help establish the impact and implications. We summarize the interplay of immunological factors, aging, environmental factors, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease that put these patients at risk for frailty. We discuss its measurement and recommend a combination of two instruments (both well‐validated and one entirely objective). We describe the outcomes for patients before and after pancreas transplantation who may have frailty, and what interventions can be taken to mitigate its effects. Broader investigation into frailty in the pancreas transplant population is needed to better understand how to select patients for pancreas transplantation and to how manage its consequences thereafter.

Background and Objectives: Our study aimed to cluster dual kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize donors and recipients better and to compare the survival outcomes across these various clusters. Materials and Methods: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 2821 dual kidney transplant recipients from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between clusters. Results: Two clinically distinct clusters were identified by consensus cluster analysis. Cluster 1 patients was characterized by younger patients (mean recipient age 49 ± 13 years) who received dual kidney transplant from pediatric (mean donor age 3 ± 8 years) non-expanded criteria deceased donor (100% non-ECD). In contrast, Cluster 2 patients were characterized by older patients (mean recipient age 63 ± 9 years) who received dual kidney transplant from adult (mean donor age 59 ± 11 years) donor with high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) score (59% had KDPI ≥ 85). Cluster 1 had higher patient survival (98.0% vs. 94.6% at 1 year, and 92.1% vs. 76.3% at 5 years), and lower acute rejection (4.2% vs. 6.1% within 1 year), when compared to cluster 2. Death-censored graft survival was comparable between two groups (93.5% vs. 94.9% at 1 year, and 89.2% vs. 84.8% at 5 years). Conclusions: In summary, DKT in the United States remains uncommon. Two clusters, based on specific recipient and donor characteristics, were identified through an unsupervised machine learning approach. Despite varying differences in donor and recipient age between the two clusters, death-censored graft survival was excellent and comparable. Broader utilization of DKT from high KDPI kidneys and pediatric en bloc kidneys should be encouraged to better address the ongoing organ shortage.

Background: Our study aimed to characterize kidney transplant recipients who received high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) kidneys using unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: We used the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019 to perform consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 8935 kidney transplant recipients from deceased donors with KDPI ≥ 85%. We identified each cluster’s key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >0.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes among the assigned clusters. Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified 6 clinically distinct clusters of kidney transplant recipients from donors with high KDPI. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, black, hypertensive, non-diabetic patients who were on dialysis for more than 3 years before receiving kidney transplant from black donors; cluster 2 by elderly, white, non-diabetic patients who had preemptive kidney transplant or were on dialysis less than 3 years before receiving kidney transplant from older white donors; cluster 3 by young, non-diabetic, retransplant patients; cluster 4 by young, non-obese, non-diabetic patients who received dual kidney transplant from pediatric, black, non-hypertensive non-ECD deceased donors; cluster 5 by low number of HLA mismatch; cluster 6 by diabetes mellitus. Cluster 4 had the best patient survival, whereas cluster 3 had the worst patient survival. Cluster 2 had the best death-censored graft survival, whereas cluster 4 and cluster 3 had the worst death-censored graft survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Cluster 2 and cluster 4 had the best overall graft survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively, whereas cluster 3 had the worst overall graft survival. Conclusions: Unsupervised machine learning approach kidney transplant recipients from donors with high KDPI based on their pattern of clinical characteristics into 6 clinically distinct clusters.