Transplantation of kidneys from non-heart-beating donors: retrospective analysis of the outcome

Implementation of donation after circulatory death kidney transplantation can safely enlarge the donor pool: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplantation has been introduced to address organ shortage. However, DCD kidneys are not accepted worldwide due to concerns about inferior quality. To investigate whether these concerns are justified, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate DCD graft outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from database inception until September 2020. Exclusion criteria were studies reporting on pediatric/dual kidney transplants, multi-organ transplants or studies including normothermic perfusion techniques. The primary outcome was graft survival. Secondary outcomes were primary non-function (PNF), delayed graft function (DGF), 3-months biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), 1-year estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), patient survival, and urologic complications. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was performed in case of high between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included, comprising 73,454 DCD and 518,229 DBD recipients. One-year graft loss was increased in DCD recipients (death-censored: risk ratio (RR) 1.10 (95%-confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.16), all-cause: RR 1.13 (95%-CI 1.08-1.19)). Ten-year graft loss was similar to DBD (death-censored: RR 1.02 (95%-CI 0.92-1.13), all-cause: RR 1.03 (95%-CI 0.94-1.13)). DCD recipients had an increased risk of PNF (RR 1.43 (95%-CI 1.26-1.62)), DGF (RR 2.02 (95%-CI 1.88-2.16)), and 1-year mortality (RR 1.10 (95%-CI 1.01-1.21)). No differences were observed for 3-months BPAR, ureter stenosis/leakage, 1-year eGFR and 10-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Long-term DCD kidney transplant outcomes are similar to DBD despite a higher risk of PNF, DGF, and a 13% increased risk of graft loss in the first year after transplantation. These results should encourage implementation of DCD programs.

Kidney transplant from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death donors maintained by nECMO has long-term outcomes comparable to standard criteria donation after brain death

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) increases organ availability for kidney transplant (KT) with short-term outcomes similar to those obtained from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. However, heterogeneous results in the long term have been reported. We compared 10-year outcomes between 237 KT recipients from uDCD donors maintained by normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (nECMO) and 237 patients undergoing KT from standard criteria DBD donors during the same period at our institution. We further analyzed risk factors for death-censored graft survival in the uDCD group. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common in the uDCD group (73.4% vs 46.4%; P < .01), although glomerular filtration rates at the end of follow-up were similar in the 2 groups. uDCD and DBD groups had similar rates for 10-year death-censored graft (82.1% vs 80.4%; P = .623) and recipient survival (86.2% vs 87.6%; P = .454). Donor age >50 years was associated with graft loss in the uDCD group (hazard ratio: 1.91; P = .058), whereas the occurrence of DGF showed no significant effect. uDCD KT under nECMO support resulted in similar graft function and long-term outcomes compared with KT from standard criteria DBD donors. Increased donor age could negatively affect graft survival after uDCD donation.

Outcome of Kidney Transplantation From Nonheart-Beating Versus Heart-Beating Cadaveric Donors

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess outcomes of kidney transplants from nonheart-beating (NHB) compared with heart-beating (HB) cadaveric donors with meta-analytical techniques.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for studies comparing kidney transplants from NHB vs. HB cadaveric donors between 1992 and 2005. The following outcomes were evaluated: warm and cold ischemia times, primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, length of hospital stay, acute graft rejection, patient and graft survival, and post-transplant serum creatinine.

RESULTS

Eighteen comparative studies of 114,081 patients matched the selection criteria; 1,858 received kidney from NHB and 112,223 from HB donor. Warm ischemia time was significantly longer for the NHB group by 24 min (P<0.001). Cold ischemia time was similar for the two groups (P=0.97). The incidence of primary nonfunction and delayed graft function was 2.4 times (P<0.001) and 3.6 times (P<0.001) greater, respectively, in the NHB group. Length of hospital stay was longer for the NHB group by 4.6 days (P<0.001). The 6-month, 2-year, and 5-year patient survival were similar between the two groups. The incidence of acute rejection was similar between the two groups whereas the initial graft survival advantage in favor of the HB group diminished gradually over the course of time. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the recipient serum creatinine levels at 3 and 12 months after transplantation.

CONCLUSION

NHB donors carry the potential of expanding the cadaveric kidney pool. Although, transplants from NHB donors are associated with a greater incidence of early adverse events, long-term outcomes appear comparable with those of transplants from HB donors.

Should we discard the graft? Analysis of the renal grafts with a total ischemia time of more than 24 hours donated after cardiac death

The objective is to investigate the outcome of transplantation using kidney grafts from donors after cardiac death (DCDs) with a total ischemia time (TIT) longer than 24 h. All 373 kidneys were procured from DCDs. They were procured using the in-situ regional cooling technique. Grafts were classified into two groups according to TIT. Fifty-three grafts had a TIT longer than 24 h (group 1), and the other 320 grafts (group 2) were less than 24 h. The numbers of never functioning grafts (PGF) were 3 in group 1 (5.7%) and 17 in group 2 (5.3%), a nonsignificant difference. Graft survival rates at 3, 5 and 10 years posttransplant were 84.9%, 73.0% and 64.1% in group 1, and 76.3%, 69.9% and 57.1% in group 2, which demonstrate no significant difference. The significant risk factors for graft failure were donor age, serum creatinine level on hospitalization and WIT. However, TIT longer than 24 h was not employed. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that only WIT was associated with an increase in the risk of PGF. Our results demonstrate that kidneys from DCDs, even if their TIT is more than 24 h, should be considered a worthwhile source of renal grafts.

Should We Discard the Renal Allografts From Cardiac Death Donors That Have Total Ischemic Time Longer Than 24 Hours?

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the outcome of transplantation using kidney grafts donated after cardiac death (DCD) with a total ischemic time (TIT) longer than 24 hours.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We followed 373 kidneys recovered from DCD donors and transplanted at 41 centers. All kidneys were procured from uncontrolled DCD donors. Grafts were classified into two groups according to TIT. We recorded renal function and duration of the survival period for each graft.

RESULTS

Fifty-three grafts had a TIT longer than 24 hours (group 1). The other 320 grafts had a TIT less than 24 hours (group 2). The number of never functioning grafts were three in group 1 (5.7%) and 17 in group 2 (5.3%). Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in 44 group 1 (83.0%) and 254 group 2 kidneys (79.4%) for intervals of 13.5 +/- 12.6 versus 10.9 +/- 12.6 days, respectively. Graft survival rates at 3, 5, and 10 years posttransplant were 84.9%, 73.0%, 64.1% for group 1, and 76.3%, 69.9%, 57.1% for group 2. In a Cox proportional hazards model, TIT longer than 24 hours was not a significant independent risk factor.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that even kidneys with TITs of over 24 hours yielded comparable results despite a higher incidence of DGF.

Non-heart-beating organ donors: a potential source of islets for transplantation?

BACKGROUND

The shortage of organ donors relative to the number of patients on transplant waiting lists has led to a renewed interest in the use of non-heart-beating (NHB) organ donors in many centers. The lack of donors is also a problem for islet transplantation. The disparity between donor organs and potential recipients is further exacerbated by the requirement to transplant a large number of islets to increase the chance of success and the high level of variability in islet isolation yield. Non-heart-beating (NHB) donors have not previously been assessed as a source of islets for transplantation, and it is unknown what affects the additional factor of warm ischemic injury associated with NHB organs may have on the success of islet isolation.

METHODS

This study assesses the yield and function of islets from NHB donors and compares the results with islets obtained from heart-beating brain-dead (HB) donors.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the yield of islets per gram of pancreas, 1788 (0-4620) NHB vs. 1580 (26-2544) HB (median, range). The secretory function was also similar in both groups, with stimulation indices of 0.71-3.49 for NHB vs. 0.30-3.57 for HB (overall range). There was no correlation between islet yield and warm ischemia time in the NHB donor group.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the study has demonstrated that it is possible to isolate large numbers of islets from NHB donor pancreata and that, where NHB donor programs exist, these could provide a significant addition to the number of potentially transplantable islets.