ABO-incompatible living kidney transplantation

A comparative study on outcomes of ABO-incompatible kidney transplants between robot-assisted vs. open surgery-propensity score-matched analysis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is increasingly being adopted worldwide. Despite this growing interest, there remains a notable gap in the literature, especially concerning its effectiveness in immunologically high-risk patients compared to conventional open kidney transplantation (OKT). This study investigates the viability and success of RAKT in comparison with OKT, particularly for recipients with ABO incompatibility (ABOi).

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study included 239 living-donor transplants between October 2020 and February 2023, with 210 patients undergoing ABOi-OKT and 29 undergoing ABOi-RAKT. A composite of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft failure, and the development of de novo donor-specific antibodies was analyzed through univariate and multivariate models. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to ensure a balanced comparison between the two groups. Following PSM, a total of 131 cases in the OKT group and 26 cases in the RAKT group were analyzed.

RESULTS

After PSM, the mean recipient age was 48.56 years for OKT and 47.96 years for RAKT. Both groups had comparable one-year (RAKT: 92.4%, OKT: 93.1%) and two-year BPAR-free survival rates (RAKT: 92.4%, OKT: 91.9%). Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate values were similar at 12 months post-transplant (RAKT: 62.15 ml/min/1.73 m², OKT: 64.53 ml/min/1.73 m²). Operative times were significantly longer for RAKT (291.42 vs. 150.81 min, p < 0.001), while cold ischemic time was also longer for RAKT (119.77 vs. 47.22 min, p < 0.001). Hospital stays were shorter for RAKT (median 6 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the composite outcome of BPAR, graft failure, and de novo donor-specific antibodies between the two groups (HR 0.858, 95% CI: 0.180-4.096, p = 0.848).

CONCLUSIONS

RAKT is a safe and effective alternative to OKT in ABOi patients, demonstrating similar perioperative outcomes, graft survival rates, and renal function. The application of ropensity score matching analysis strengthens the reliability of these findings, confirming RAKT's viability for high-risk kidney transplant recipients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial associated with this study was registered on 2024-02-24 with the Clinical Trial Number NCT06287008|| https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ ).

Intravenous immunoglobulin in kidney transplantation: Mechanisms of action, clinical applications, adverse effects, and hyperimmune globulin

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been developed for over 40 years. The mechanisms of action of IVIG are complex and diverse, and there may be multiple mechanisms that combine to influence it. IVIG has been used in kidney transplantation for desensitization, treatment of antibody-mediated rejection, and ABO-incompatible transplantation. and treatment or prevention of some infectious diseases. Hyperimmune globulins such as cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin (CMV-IG) and hepatitis B hyperimmune globulin (HBIG) have also been used to protect against cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B virus, respectively. However, IVIG is also associated with some rare but serious adverse effects and some application risks, and clinicians need to weigh the pros and cons and develop individualized treatment programs to benefit more patients. This review will provide an overview of the multiple mechanisms of action, clinical applications, adverse effects, and prophylactic measures of IVIG, and hyperimmune globulin will also be introduced in it.

Overcoming limits: First ABO incompatible living donor paired kidney transplant in an hypersensitized pediatric recipient in Spain

INTRODUCTION

HLA sensitization is a growing problem in children awaiting kidney transplantation. In some cases, finding an immunologically compatible donor entails contemplating the option of an ABO incompatible transplant or paired transplant.

METHODS

Patient with genetic nephrotic syndrome and progressive chronic kidney disease, with a previous thrombosis of a first kidney transplant, resulting hypersensitized and remaining for a long-time on hemodialysis. Despite a desensitization strategy, family members were incompatible and deceased donation options must be ruled out due to the presentation of donor-specific antibodies (DSA). After 4 years, the possibility arises to perform a kidney paired transplant with a 62-year-old woman with an incompatible blood group. Although the current cytotoxicity- and cell-based crossmatches were negative, history of DSA were recorded.

RESULTS

An intensive ABO and HLA desensitization protocol was performed in order to combat the isohemagglutinin antibodies and on the memory-HLA, based on rituximab, apheresis sessions, and immunoglobulins. Despite the donor being older in terms of pediatric transplantation, the donor-recipient weight difference, and immunological risk, the transplant was completed successfully. Maintenance of titration of up to 1/2 was confirmed after 3 weeks post-transplant (IgM and IgG). Kidney biopsy at 2 weeks and 6 months without signs of rejection. The patient is currently 12 months post-transplant and has not presented any signs of transplant rejection and has proper renal function.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney paired transplantation is an excellent solution for hypersensitized children, and ABO incompatibility can be considered to increase their options to find a good donor, without thereby obtaining worse results.

Current Perspectives in ABO-Incompatible Kidney Transplant

For a long time, ABO incompatible living donor kidney transplantation has been considered contraindicated, due to the presence of isohemagglutinins, natural antibodies reacting with non-self ABO antigens. However, as the demand for kidney transplantation is constantly growing, methods to expand the donor pool have become increasingly important. Thus, in the last decades, specific desensitization strategies for ABOi transplantation have been developed. Nowadays, these regimens consist of transient removal of preformed anti-A or anti-B antibodies by using plasmapheresis or immunoadsorption and B-cell immunity modulation by CD20+ cells depletion with rituximab, in association with maintenance immunosuppression including corticosteroids, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. The outcome in ABOi kidney transplantation have markedly improved over the years. In fact, although randomized trials are still lacking, recent meta analysis has revealed that there is no difference in terms of graft and patient's survival between ABOi and ABO compatible kidney transplant, even in the long term. However, many concerns still exist, because ABOi kidney transplantation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and infectious complications, partly related to the effects of extracorporeal treatments and the strong immunosuppression. Thus, a continuous improvement in desensitization strategies, with the aim of minimize the immunosuppressive burden, on the basis of immune pathogenesis, antibodies titers and/or ABO blood group, is warranted. In this review, we discuss the main immune mechanisms involved in ABOi kidney transplantation, the pathogenesis of tolerance and the desensitization regimens, including immunoadsorption and plasmapheresis and the immunosuppressive protocol. Finally, we provide an overview on outcome and future perspectives in ABOi kidney transplant.

Infection Risk in the First Year After ABO-incompatible Kidney Transplantation: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation (KT) expands the kidney donor pool and may help to overcome organ shortage. Nonetheless, concerns about infectious complications associated with ABOi-KT have been raised.

METHODS

In a nationwide cohort (Swiss Transplant Cohort Study), we compared the risk for infectious complications among ABOi and ABO-compatible (ABOc) renal transplant recipients. Infections needed to fulfill rigorous, prespecified criteria to be classified as clinically relevant. Unadjusted and adjusted competing risk regression models were used to compare the time to the first clinically relevant infection among ABOi-KT and ABOc-KT recipients. Inverse probability weighted generalized mixed-effects Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios for infection.

RESULTS

We included 757 living-donor KT recipients (639 ABOc; 118 ABOi) and identified 717 infection episodes. The spectrum of causative pathogens and the anatomical sites affected by infections were similar between ABOi-KT and ABOc-KT recipients. There was no significant difference in time to first posttransplant infection between ABOi-KT and ABOc-KT recipients (subhazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.66; P = 0.142). At 1 y, the crude infection rate was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.93-1.33) episodes per patient-year for ABOi patients and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.86-1.01) for ABOc-KT recipients. Inverse probability weighted infection rates were similar between groups (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83-1.52; P = 0.461).

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of infections during the first year posttransplant was high but not relevantly different in ABOi-KT and ABOc-KT recipients. Our results highlight that concerns regarding infectious complications should not affect the implementation of ABOi-KT programs.

ABO incompatibility in renal transplantation

ABO blood group incompatibility (ABO-I) was historically considered an absolute contraindication to kidney transplantation due to the significant risk of acute antibody-mediated rejection and early graft loss. Nevertheless, the urge to minimize the gap between the candidates' number on the waitlist for kidney transplants and the available kidney donors encourage investigation into finding ways to use organs from ABO-I kidney donors, especially in the era of using more potent immunosuppression therapies. This review aims to discuss a general overview of ABO-I kidney transplantation and the different protocols adopted by some transplant centers to meaningfully overcome this barrier.