Citations

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe diagnosis of antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR) requires input from several transplant professionals. Bringing clinical and laboratory experts together may help standardize care. Yet, little is known about current global practices of multidisciplinary meetings for AMR management.MethodsThe Banff Antibody‐Mediated Injury Working Group approached professional societies worldwide to distribute a survey on the availability, content, participants, perceived value, and barriers to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings.ResultsFour hundred two transplant professionals from six continents caring for kidney (90.55%), liver (21.14%), pancreas (20.65%), heart (15.17%), and lung (14.18%) transplant recipients participated in the survey, and 302 (75.12%) reported attending multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary meetings were more prevalent in academic centers, in high‐ versus low‐to‐middle‐income regions (81.03% and 65.99%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in mid‐to‐large size transplant programs compared to smaller programs. Perceived value included continued professional development (97.68%) and trainee education (95.70%). AMR was reported to be discussed at these meetings by 217 respondents with case presentations reviewing patient characteristics, histology, and HLA antibody data. A third of the respondents reviewed non‐HLA/pathogenic autoantibodies and/or molecular diagnostics, with the latter being more frequently applied in high‐ versus low‐to‐middle‐income regions (46.71% and 12.31%, respectively; p < 0.001). AMR case presentations allowed diagnosis revision, actionable management plans and were perceived as improving care. The primary barrier to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings (63.27%) was the unavailability of transplant professionals (e.g., transplant immunologists).ConclusionFacilitating multidisciplinary meetings through the remote participation of pertinent experts and incentivizing participation through remuneration, protected time, or continued medical education may help standardize AMR diagnosis and harmonize its management.

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.

Background. Pancreas transplant biopsy practices for the diagnosis of rejection or other pathologies are not well described. Methods. We conducted a survey of staff at US pancreas transplant programs (March 22, 2022, to August 22, 2022) to assess current program practices and perceptions about the utility and challenges in the performance and interpretation of pancreas allograft biopsies. Results. Respondents represented 65% (76/117) of active adult pancreas transplant programs, capturing 66% of recent pancreas transplant volume in the United States. Participants were most often nephrologists (52%), followed by surgeons (46%), and other staff (4%). Pancreas allograft biopsies were performed mostly by interventional radiologists (74%), followed by surgeons (11%), nephrologists (8%), and gastroenterologists (1%). Limitations in the radiologist’s or biopsy performer’s comfort level or expertise to safely perform a biopsy, or to obtain sufficient/adequate samples were the two most common challenges with pancreas transplant biopsies. Pancreas transplant biopsies were read by local pathologists at a majority (86%) of centers. Challenges reported with pancreas biopsy interpretation included poor reliability, lack of reporting of C4d staining, lack of reporting of rejection grading, and inconclusive interpretation of the biopsy. Staff at a third of responding programs (34%) stated that they rarely or never perform pancreas allograft biopsies and treat presumed rejection empirically. Conclusions. This national survey identified significant variation in clinical practices related to pancreas allograft biopsies and potential barriers to pancreas transplant utilization across the United States. Consideration of strategies to improve program experience with percutaneous pancreas biopsy and to support optimal management of pancreas allograft rejection informed by histology is warranted.

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.

Longer pre-transplant dialysis duration is known to be associated with worse post-transplant outcomes. Our study aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients with prolonged dialysis duration before transplant using an unsupervised machine learning approach to better assess heterogeneity within this cohort. We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 5092 kidney transplant recipients who had been on dialysis ≥ 10 years prior to transplant in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We characterized each assigned cluster and compared the posttransplant outcomes. Overall, the majority of patients with ≥10 years of dialysis duration were black (52%) or Hispanic (25%), with only a small number (17.6%) being moderately sensitized. Within this cohort, three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 patients were younger, non-diabetic and non-sensitized, had a lower body mass index (BMI) and received a kidney transplant from younger donors. Cluster 2 recipients were older, unsensitized and had a higher BMI; they received kidney transplant from older donors. Cluster 3 recipients were more likely to be female with a higher PRA. Compared to cluster 1, cluster 2 had lower 5-year death-censored graft (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.16–1.71) and patient survival (HR 2.98; 95% CI 2.43–3.68). Clusters 1 and 3 had comparable death-censored graft and patient survival. Unsupervised machine learning was used to characterize kidney transplant recipients with prolonged pre-transplant dialysis into three clinically distinct clusters with variable but good post-transplant outcomes. Despite a dialysis duration ≥ 10 years, excellent outcomes were observed in most recipients, including those with moderate sensitization. A disproportionate number of minority recipients were observed within this cohort, suggesting multifactorial delays in accessing kidney transplantation.

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.

Background: Better understanding of the different phenotypes/subgroups of non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients may help the transplant community to identify strategies that improve outcomes among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients. This study aimed to cluster non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach; Methods: We conducted a consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant- related characteristics in non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database using recipient, donor, and transplant-related characteristics. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes were compared among the clusters; Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 11,300 non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients and identified two distinct clusters best representing clinical characteristics. Cluster 1 patients were notable for young age, preemptive kidney transplant or dialysis duration of less than 1 year, working income, private insurance, non-hypertensive donors, and Hispanic living donors with a low number of HLA mismatch. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were characterized by non-ECD deceased donors with KDPI <85%. Consequently, cluster 1 patients had reduced cold ischemia time, lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys, and lower incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplant. Cluster 2 had higher 5-year death-censored graft failure (5.2% vs. 9.8%; p < 0.001), patient death (3.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001), but similar one-year acute rejection (4.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.63), compared to cluster 1; Conclusions: Machine learning clustering approach successfully identified two clusters among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients with distinct phenotypes that were associated with different outcomes, including allograft loss and patient survival. These findings underscore the need for individualized care for non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients.