Impact of Asystolic Donations in Kidney Transplant Activity From Cadaveric Donors in Andalusia

False-Positive Tumor During Organ Retrieval: All Cats Are Gray in the Dark

OBJECTIVE

Efforts to expand the organ donor pool to meet growing transplant demands remains a top priority, as does maintaining the quality and safety standards of potential recipients. There is a short window of time from organ retrieval to decision making on organ acceptance, based on the available data. Furthermore, the limitations of intraoperative biopsy can often lead to donor or organ refusal due to a suspected tumor, which, if not confirmed in the final biopsy, results in the loss of a transplant opportunity.

METHODS

Donor characteristics and organs discarded on suspicion of neoplastic disease at the time of extraction were analyzed in Andalusia between January 2014 and July 2018. The variable analysis included sociodemographic data, type of donor, location of the potential malignancy, histopathologic examination, and discarded organs.

RESULTS

A total of 43 cases were identified. The organs of 33 donors (76.7%) were discarded. Kidneys were the most frequent location for a suspected tumor (44%), followed by the liver (21%). In 18 of the 43 cases (42%), the suspected malignancy was not confirmed, and of these, only 3 livers and 1 kidney were implanted. Sixty potentially transplantable organs were discarded, including those that would have been extracted and/or implanted in the absence of a suspected tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the need not only to improve the accuracy of intraoperative biopsies but to seek new decision-making strategies for the short interval after organ retrieval. This involves avoiding both extremes of donation contraindications, while maintaining quality and safety standards.

Survival and Evolution of Renal Function in Kidney Transplant Recipients From Type II Asystolic Donations: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

In recent years, stagnation in the number of kidneys from after brain-dead donors (DBD) has stimulated the use of non-heart beating donors (NHBDs). Herein we present our 5-year experience with type II Maastricht NHBDs in renal transplantation.

METHODS

All patients (n = 50) in this study received type II Maastricht NHBD kidneys (March 2012 to February 2017), with a median follow-up of 33 months.

RESULTS

Mean donor age was 39 ± 12 years, mean creatinine 1.24 ± 0.2 mg/dL, and the most frequently observed blood group (donors and recipients) was type A (64%). Recipients were slightly younger (51 ± 11 years old), with mean time on dialysis of 30 ± 24 months. Almost all were primary transplants. Pre-transplant panel-reactive antibodies (PRA) were <25%; initial immunosuppression was thymoglobulin, corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and delayed introduction of tacrolimus. Six percent were nonfunctioning kidneys; 79.6% presented with delayed renal function (mean duration 14 ± 9 days). Acute rejection was seen in 6% of patients. Mean creatinine at month 3 was 1.7 ± 0.8 mg/dL, and 1.5 ± 0.8 mg/dL in the first year. The last available mean creatinine was 1.54 ± 0.7 mg/dL. Proteinuria in the third month, first year, and third year was 0.70, 0.41, and 0.26 g/d, respectively. Recipient survival at the first, third, and fifth year was 100%, 100%, and 86%, and when graft-censored for death was 94%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection during first year was 6%, and 2% in the second year. Exitus incidence was 4% and cytomegalovirus infection was 21.3%. BK viremia between 1000 and 10,000 copies/mL was seen in 4.3%, and reached >10,000 copies/mL in 2.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Type II NHBD has shown limited frequency of nonfunctioning kidney and high functional delay. The results in survival and renal function are very acceptable, comparable with levels seen in donation after brain death.

Non-Heart-Beating Donor Kidney Transplantation Survival Is Similar to Donation After Brain Death: Comparative Study With Controls in a Regional Program

Non-heart-beating donors (NHBD) are an increasing source of organs for kidney transplantation (KT) compared with donation after brain death (DBD), but the results in each regional transplantation program require local analysis. We compared 164 KT from NHBD (83 Maastrich type II A-B [T2] and 81 type III [T3]) with 328 DBD controls. NHBD kidneys were implanted with less cold ischemia, mean time on renal replacement therapy for NHBD recipients before transplantation was less too, and a higher proportion of thymoglobulin was also used. Besides NHBD-T2 more frequently showing the A group and patients being younger (48.9 ± 11 vs DBD 55.2 ± 15 years old; P < .001), there was a lower proportion of retransplant recipients and HLA sensitization; HLA-DR compatibility was slightly worse. Proportion of nonfunctioning allograft and necessity of dialysis after transplantation for NHBD were 4.9 and 68.3% versus DBD 4.3 and 26.9% (P < .001); renal function after a year was significantly less in NHBD (serum creatinine 1.79 ± 0.9 mg/dL vs 1.46 ± 0.5 in DBD; P < .001). NHBD recipient survival rates were 96% and 96% for the 1st and 3rd years, respectively, versus 96% and 94% for DBD, respectively (not significant [NS]). Graft survival rates censored by death were 91% and 89% (1st and 3rd years, respectively) versus 95% and 94% for DBD, respectively (NS). We did not find significant differences about survival between NHBD-T2 and T3. In the multivariable survival study (Cox, covariables with statistical significance demonstrated previously in our region), NHBD is not a prognosis factor for recipient or graft survival. Regarding current criteria for choosing donors and the graft allocation applied in Andalusia, short-term survival for NHBD transplantation is similar to DBD. Renal function in the short term is slightly worse, which is why it is important to monitor results over a long term, especially those from NHBD-T2.