Outcomes of Kidney Grafts Refused by One or More Centers and Subsequently Transplanted at a Single United Kingdom Center

Rescue Allocation Modes in Eurotransplant Kidney Transplantation: Recipient Oriented Extended Allocation Versus Competitive Rescue Allocation-A Retrospective Multicenter Outcome Analysis

BACKGROUND

Whenever the kidney standard allocation (SA) algorithms according to the Eurotransplant (ET) Kidney Allocation System or the Eurotransplant Senior Program fail, rescue allocation (RA) is initiated. There are 2 procedurally different modes of RA: recipient oriented extended allocation (REAL) and competitive rescue allocation (CRA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of patient survival and graft failure with RA mode and whether or not it varied across the different ET countries.

METHODS

The ET database was retrospectively analyzed for donor and recipient clinical and demographic characteristics in association with graft outcomes of deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) across all ET countries and centers from 2014 to 2021 using Cox proportional hazards methods.

RESULTS

Seventeen thousand six hundred seventy-nine renal transplantations were included (SA 15 658 [89%], REAL 860 [4.9%], and CRA 1161 [6.6%]). In CRA, donors were older, cold ischemia times were longer, and HLA matches were worse in comparison with REAL and especially SA. Multivariable analyses showed comparable graft and recipient survival between SA and REAL; however, CRA was associated with shorter graft survival. Germany performed 76% of all DDRTs after REAL and CRA and the latter mode reduced waiting times by up to 2.9 y.

CONCLUSIONS

REAL and CRA are used differently in the ET countries according to national donor rates. Both RA schemes optimize graft utilization, lead to acceptable outcomes, and help to stabilize national DDRT programs, especially in Germany.

Kidney Transplantation Outcome Predictions (KTOP): A Risk Prediction Tool for Kidney Transplants from Brain-dead Deceased Donors Based on a Large European Cohort

BACKGROUND

European kidney donation shortages mandate efficient organ allocation by optimizing the prediction of success for individual recipients.

OBJECTIVE

To develop the first European online risk tool for kidney transplant outcomes on the basis of recipient-only and recipient plus donor characteristics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We used individual recipient and donor risk factors and three outcomes (death, death with functioning graft [DWFG], and graft loss) for 32 958 transplants within the Eurotransplant kidney allocation system and the Eurotransplant senior program between January 2006 and May 2018 in eight European countries to develop and validate a risk tool.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Cox proportional-hazards models were used to analyze the association of risk factors with overall patient mortality, and proportional subdistribution hazard regression models for their association with graft loss and DWFG. Prediction models were developed with recipient-only and recipient-donor risk factors. Sensitivity analyses based on time-specific area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with leave-one-country-out validation were performed and calibration plots were generated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The 10-yr cumulative incidence rate was 37% for mortality, 12% for DWFG, and 41% for graft loss. In recipient-donor models the leading risk factors for mortality were recipient diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 10.73), retransplantation (HR 3.08 per transplant), and recipient age (HR 1.08). Effects were similar for DWFG. For graft loss, diabetes (subdistributional HR [SHR] 1.32), increased donor age (SHR 1.02), and prolonged cold ischemia time (SHR 1.02) had increased SHRs. All p values were <0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously identified risk factors for outcomes following kidney transplants allow for outcome prediction with 10-yr AUC values of up to 0.81.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Using European data, we estimated individual risks to predict the success of kidney transplants and support physicians in decision-making. An online tool is now available (https://riskcalc.org/ktop/) for predicting kidney transplant outcomes both before and after a donor has been identified.

Kidney Transplantation After Rescue Allocation-the Eurotransplant Experience: A Retrospective Multicenter Outcome Analysis

BACKGROUND

At Eurotransplant (ET), kidneys are transferred to "rescue allocation" (RA), whenever the standard allocation (SA) algorithms Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) and Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) fail. We analyzed the outcome of RA.

METHODS

Retrospective patient clinical and demographic characteristics association analyses were performed with graft outcomes for 2422 recipients of a deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) after RA versus 25 481 after SA from 71 centers across all ET countries from 2006 to 2018.

RESULTS

Numbers of DDRTs after RA increased over the time, especially in Germany. RA played a minor role in ESP versus ETKAS (2.7% versus 10.4%). RA recipients and donors were older compared with SA recipients and donors, cold ischemia times were longer, waiting times were shorter, and the incidence of primary nonfunction was comparable. Among ETKAS recipients, HLA matching was more favorable in SA (mean 3.7 versus 2.5). In multivariate modeling, the incidence of graft loss in ETKAS recipients was reduced in RA compared with SA (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [0.70-0.91], P < 0.001), whereas other outcomes (mortality, death with functioning graft (DwFG)) were not significantly different. None of the 3 outcomes were significantly different when comparing RA with SA within the ESP program.

CONCLUSIONS

Facing increased waiting times and mortality on dialysis due to donor shortage, this study reveals encouragingly positive DDRT outcomes following RA. This supports the extension of RA to more patients and as an alternative tool to enable transplantation in patients in countries with prohibitively long waiting times or at risk of deterioration.

The Suitability of Potential Organ Donors Using Real Case-Scenarios; Do we Need to Create a "Donor Board" Process for Donors Perceived as Unlikely Suitable?

Introduction: Despite availability of selection criteria, different interpretations can lead to variability in the appreciation of donor eligibility with possible viable organs missed. Our primary objective was to test the perception of feasibility of potential organ donors through the survey of a small sample of external evaluators.

Methods: Clinical scenarios summarizing 66 potential donors managed in the first year of our Organ Recovery Center were sent to four critical care physicians to evaluate the feasibility of the potential donors and the probability of organ procurement.

Results: Potential donors procuring at least one organ were identified in 55 of the 66 cases (83%). Unanimity was reached in 38 cases, encompassing 35 out of the 55 converted and 3 of the non-converted donors. The overall agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37–0.82). For the organs finally procured for transplantation, organ donation was predicted for the majority of the cases, but high discrepancy was present with the final outcome of organs not procured (particularly liver and kidney).

Conclusion: The assessment of a potential donor is a complex dynamic process. In order to increase organ availability, standardized electronically clinical data, as well a “donor board” structure of decision might inform future systems.

Kidney transplantation after rescue allocation-meticulous selection yields the chance for excellent outcome

BACKGROUND

The small number of organ donors forces transplant centres to consider potentially suboptimal kidneys for transplantation. Eurotransplant established an algorithm for rescue allocation (RA) of kidneys repeatedly declined or not allocated within 5 h after procurement. Data on the outcomes and benefits of RA are scarce to date.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective 8-year analysis of transplant outcomes of RA offers based on our in-house criteria catalogue for acceptance and decline of organs and potential recipients.

RESULTS

RA donors and recipients were both older compared with standard allocation (SA). RA donors more frequently had a history of hypertension, diabetes or fulfilled expanded criteria donor key parameters. RA recipients had poorer human leucocyte antigen (HLA) matches and longer cold ischaemia times (CITs). However, waiting time was shorter and delayed graft function, primary non-function and biopsy-proven rejections were comparable to SA. Five-year graft and patient survival after RA were similar to SA. In multivariate models accounting for confounding factors, graft survival and mortality after RA and SA were comparable as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Facing relevant comorbidities and rapid deterioration with the risk of being removed from the waiting list, kidney transplantation after RA was identified to allow for earlier transplantation with excellent outcome. Data from this survey propose not to reject categorically organs from multimorbid donors with older age and a history of hypertension or diabetes to aim for the best possible HLA matching and to carefully calculate overall expected CIT.

Retrieved but not transplanted kidneys: how to limit the losses? A retrospective national study

Despite the organ shortage, a significant number of deceased donor kidneys are retrieved but not transplanted (RNTK). This study aims to describe and analyze the main causes of potential grafts discard and to propose adequate solutions. We collected data from the Cristal database of the French Biomedicine Agency about RNTK over one year. Expert opinion was taken from urologists with extensive expertise in renal transplantation. They retrospectively analyzed each record to assess the appropriateness of each graft refusal and subsequent kidney discard. Of 252 kidneys were retrieved but not transplanted in France over one year. The main reasons for discard were vascular abnormalities in 43.7% (n = 110), suspicion of malignant tumor in 18.7% (n = 47), and severe histological lesions on preimplantation biopsy in 12.3% (n = 31). The reason for kidney refusal was undetermined in 4.8% (n = 12). Iatrogenic lesions were responsible for 26.2% (n = 66). Overall, 46.0% (n = 16) and 25.0% (n = 63) of the grafts were, respectively, properly and improperly denied, and the analysis was not possible in 29.0% (n = 73). In total, 36.9% of RNTK could have been transplanted. Reduction of iatrogenic lesions, improvement of microsurgical repair skills, and proper histological examination are necessary to reduce the number of RNTK. A prospective study applying the proposed principles is undoubtedly essential to complete this work.

Increasing donor sequence number is not associated with inferior outcomes in lung transplantation

BACKGROUND

Donor sequence number (DSN) represents the number of recipients to whom an organ has been offered. The impact of seeing numerous prior refusals may potentially influence the decision to accept an organ. We sought to determine if DSN was associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, a retrospective analysis was performed on 22 361 patients who received a lung transplant between 2005 and 2017. Patients were grouped into low DSN (1-24, n = 16 860) and high DSN (>24, n = 5501) categories. Baseline characteristics and posttransplant outcomes were analyzed. An institutional subgroup was also analyzed to compare rates of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) posttransplant.

RESULTS

The DSN ranged from 1 to 1735 (median, 7; interquartile range, 2-24). A total of 18 507 recipients received an organ with at least one prior refusal. Recipients of donors with a higher DSN were older (58 vs 55 years; P < .01) but had lower lung allocation scores (43.5 vs 47.5; P < .01). On adjusted analysis, high DSN was not associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.04; P = .77). There was no difference in the incidence of graft failure (P = .37) or retransplantation (P = .24). Recipient subgroups who received donors with an increasing DSN >50 and >75 also demonstrated no difference in mortality when compared with a low DSN (P = .86 and P = .97). There was no difference in PGD for patients with a low vs a high DSN at any time posttransplant.

CONCLUSIONS

DSN is not associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing lung transplantation and should not negatively influence the decision to accept a lung for transplant.

Poor organ quality and donor-recipient age mismatch rather than poor donation rates account for the decrease in deceased kidney transplantation rates in a Germany Transplant Center

Kidney transplantation is limited not by technical or immunological challenges but by lack of donor organs. Whereas the number of patients on waiting list increased, the transplantation rate decreased. We analyzed the development of decline rates and reasons as well as the fate of declined organs. In total, 1403 organs offered to 1950 patients between 2001 and 2010 were included. Of 440 organs offered between 2009 and 2011 that were declined, we investigated whether these organs were transplanted elsewhere and requested delayed graft function, creatinine, graft and patient survival. Data were compared to results of transplantations at the same time at our center. Decline rate increased from 47% to 87%. Main reasons were poor organ quality and donor-recipient age or size mismatch. Of the rejected organs, 55% were transplanted at other centers with function, graft and patient survival equivalent to patients transplanted at our center during that period. The number of decline has increased over time mainly due to a growing number of marginal donors accounting for poor organ quality or a mismatch of donor and recipient. If proper donor-recipient selection is performed, many organs that would otherwise be discarded can be transplanted successfully.

The discard of deceased donor kidneys in the UK

It is essential to minimize the unnecessary discard of procured deceased donor kidneys, but information on discard rates and the extent to which discard can be avoided are limited. Analysis of the UK Transplant Registry revealed that the discard rate of procured deceased donor kidneys has increased from 5% in 2002-3 to 12% in 2011-12. A national offering system for hard-to-place kidneys was introduced in the UK in 2006 (the Declined Kidney Scheme), but just 13% of kidneys that were subsequently discarded until 2012 were offered through the scheme. In order to examine the appropriateness of discard, 20 consecutive discarded kidneys from 13 deceased donors were assessed to determine if surgeons agreed with the decision that they were not implantable. Donors had a median (range) age of 67 (31-80) yr. Kidneys had been offered to a median of 3 (1-12) centers before discard. Four (20%) of the discarded kidneys were thought to be usable, and nine (45%) were possibly usable. As a result of these findings, major changes to the UK deceased donor kidney offering system have been implemented, including simultaneous offering and broader entry criteria for hard-to-place kidneys. Organizational changes are necessary to improve utilization of deceased donor kidneys.

Accept or refuse? Factors influencing the decision-making of transplant surgeons who are offered a pancreas: results of a qualitative study

Background

Most offered pancreases are not transplanted. This study investigates the factors that inform and influence the transplant surgeon’s decision to select an offered pancreas.

Methods

Semi-standardized interviews were conducted with 14 highly qualified transplant surgeons from all 14 German transplant centers performing > 5 pancreas transplantations per year. The interviews focused on medical and non-medical criteria on which the individual accept/refuse decision depends. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and underwent content analysis.

Results

The interviewees agreed upon certain main selection criteria, e.g. donor age, lab results, ICU stay. However, there was no consistency in judging these parameters, and clear cut-offs did not exist. The pancreas macroscopy is a pivotal factor, as well as knowing (and trusting) the donor surgeon. 3/14 surgeons reported that they had occasionally refused a pancreas because of staff shortage. Some interviewees followed a restrictive acceptance policy, whereas others preferred to accept almost any pancreas and inspect it personally before deciding.

Conclusion

The assessment of medical donor characteristics is highly inconsistent. Both very cautious as well as very permissive acceptance policies may render the allocation process less efficient. A more standardized policy should be discussed. Finally, better training for donor surgeons seems advisable, in order to increase trust and thus pancreas utilization.

Why offered pancreases are refused in the allocation process-a descriptive study using routine data from eurotransplant

BACKGROUND

The majority of pancreases, offered in allocation, are discarded. This pancreas underutilization is not well understood yet.

METHODS

We analyzed the detailed allocation protocols of all Eurotransplant-registered German whole-pancreas donors (2005-2009; n=1758). Outcome measures included donor characteristics, number of refusals per organ, and proportion of different refusal reasons in the whole sample and subgroups.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven percent of offered pancreases were transplanted; among these, 62% of pancreases were of potentially high quality (favorable donor age and pre-procurement pancreas allocation suitability score, no malignancy, n=290). A pancreas was placed after four offers (median) or withdrawn after eight offers (median). Seventy-five percent of refusal reasons were donor related (e.g., "lab results", "age", "macroscopy", and "long intensive care unit [ICU] stay"). Among pancreases refused for "diabetes" or "malignancy" at least once, the proportion of transplanted organs was less than 10%; pancreases refused due to "trauma", "age", or "resuscitation" were later transplanted in 48%, 32%, and 28%, respectively. The impact of donor age and ICU stay on organ refusal varied substantially: organs were refused due to length of ICU stay even if donors stayed 7 days or less; some organs were transplanted without ever being refused due to ICU stay in donors who stayed 8 days or more in ICU. There were no clinically significant disparities between donors of used and unused pancreases, except age (median, 31 vs. 42 years).

DISCUSSION

The loss of several pancreases seems avoidable. Many refusal reasons are not plausible, because there is no evidence supporting the refusal and because many of these organs were transplanted by other centers. This increases inefficiency in the allocation system.