Chain transplantation: initial experience of a large multicenter program

Long-Term Outcomes of Kidney Paired Donation Transplantation: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the kidney paired donation (KPD) program recipients with the traditional living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) recipients regarding patient and graft survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 141 recipients of the KPD program and 141 classic LDKT recipients that we matched for age and sex as controls between July 2005 and June 2019. We compared the 2 transplant groups for patient and kidney survival using the Kaplan-Maier test. We also performed Cox Regression analysis to examine factors affecting patient survival, including transplant type.

RESULTS

The average follow-up period was 96.17 ± 44.22 months. Of the 282 patients, 88 died in the follow-up period. There was no statistically significant difference in graft and patient survival between the KPD and LDKT groups. In the Cox regression model, including the transplant type, only the serum creatinine level measured in the first month after discharge was a significant factor in predicting patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study indicate that the KPD program is an effective and reliable method to increase LDKT. Country-wide multicentric studies should confirm the results of this study. In countries where cadaver transplantation is insufficient, efforts should be made to expand the KPD program.

Paired kidney donation: are we going beyond reasonable limits in living-donor transplantation?

The growing demand for transplant kidneys requires strategies to increase organ supply and avoid long waiting periods on the list. The increase in the number of transplants from living donors involves the growth in the use of unrelated donors and paired kidney donation. Most of these transplants are performed in the USA, where they already represent, respectively, 34% and 16% of total transplants from living donors. In Latin America, and especially in Brazil, there is no collective enthusiasm for these modalities, either at the request of transplanters or that of the community, with the region's priority being to increase transplants from deceased donors, which growth can be up to three-fold. Concerning transplants from matched donors, the possible conflicting results between donors can generate public challenges and they risk compromise the concepts of equal opportunities for transplant candidates, with the possibility of generating resistance to organ donation, especially in regions with socioeconomic limitations and disparities in access to qualified health care and education. This donation model involves challenging ethical and logistical issues, which are subject to questionings, starting with an act of exchange between two pairs until reaching embarrassing proposals, which can compromise the altruistic character of organ donation, and thus not be universally incorporated.

The benefit to waitlist patients in a national paired kidney exchange program: Exploring characteristics of chain end living donor transplants

Nondirected kidney donors can initiate living donor chains that end to patients on the waitlist. We compared 749 National Kidney Registry (NKR) waitlist chain end transplants to other transplants from the NKR and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between February 2008 and September 2020. Compared to other NKR recipients, chain end recipients were more often older (53 vs. 52 years), black (32% vs. 15%), publicly insured (71% vs. 46%), and spent longer on dialysis (3.0 vs. 1.0 years). Similar differences were noted between chain end recipients and non-NKR living donor recipients. Black patients received chain end kidneys at a rate approaching that of deceased donor kidneys (32% vs. 34%). Chain end donors were older (52 vs. 44 years) with slightly lower glomerular filtration rates (93 vs. 98 ml/min/1.73 m² ) than other NKR donors. Chain end recipients had elevated risk of graft failure and mortality compared to control living donor recipients (both p < .01) but lower graft failure (p = .03) and mortality (p < .001) compared to deceased donor recipients. Sharing nondirected donors among a multicenter network may improve the diversity of waitlist patients who benefit from living donation.

A Roadmap for Innovation to Advance Transplant Access and Outcomes: A Position Statement From the National Kidney Foundation

Over the past 65 years, kidney transplantation has evolved into the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, dramatically reducing suffering through improved survival and quality of life. However, access to transplant is still limited by organ supply, opportunities for transplant are inequitably distributed, and lifelong transplant survival remains elusive. To address these persistent needs, the National Kidney Foundation convened an expert panel to define an agenda for future research. The key priorities identified by the panel center on the needs to develop and evaluate strategies to expand living donation, improve waitlist management and transplant readiness, maximize use of available deceased donor organs, and extend allograft longevity. Strategies targeting the critical goal of decreasing organ discard that warrant research investment include educating patients and clinicians about potential benefits of accepting nonstandard organs, use of novel organ assessment technologies and real-time decision support, and approaches to preserve and resuscitate allografts before implantation. The development of personalized strategies to reduce the burden of lifelong immunosuppression and support "one transplant for life" was also identified as a vital priority. The panel noted the specific goal of improving transplant access and graft survival for children with kidney failure. This ambitious agenda will focus research investment to promote greater equity and efficiency in access to transplantation, and help sustain long-term benefits of the gift of life for more patients in need.

Non-simultaneous kidney exchange cycles in resource-restricted countries without non-directed donation - a prospective single-center cohort study

Recent reports suggest that bridge-donor reneging is rare (1.5%) in non-simultaneous kidney exchange chains. However, in developing countries, the non-directed donors who would be needed to initiate chains are unavailable, and furthermore, limited surgical space and resources restrain the feasibility of simultaneous kidney exchange cycles. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the bridge-donor reneging rate during non-simultaneous kidney exchange cycles (NSKEC) in a prospective single-center cohort study (n = 67). We describe the protocol used to prepare co-registered donor-recipient pairs for non-simultaneous surgeries, in an effort to minimize the reneging rate. In addition, in order to protect any recipients who might be left vulnerable by this arrangement, we proposed the use of standard criteria deceased-donor kidneys to rectify the injustice in the event of any bridge-donor reneging. We report 17 successful NSKEC resulting in 67 living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) using 23 bridge-donors without donor renege and no intervening pairs became unavailable. We propose that NSKEC could increase LDKT, especially for difficult-to-match sensitized pairs (25 of our 67 pairs) in countries with limited transplantation resources. Our study confirms that NSKEC can be safely performed with careful patient-donor selection and non-anonymous kidney exchanges.

Donor considerations in pediatric kidney transplantation

This article reviews kidney transplant donor options for children with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Global access to kidney transplantation is variable. Well-established national policies, organizations for organ procurement and allocation, and donor management policies may account for higher deceased donor (DD transplants) in some countries. Living donor kidney transplantation (LD) predominates in countries where organ donation has limited national priority. In addition, social, cultural, religious and medical factors play a major role in both LD and DD kidney transplant donation. Most children with ESKD receive adult-sized kidneys. The transplanted kidney has a finite survival and the expectation is that children who require renal replacement therapy from early childhood will probably have 2 or 3 kidney transplants in their lifetime. LD transplant provides better long-term graft survival and is a better option for children. When a living related donor is incompatible with the intended recipient, paired kidney exchange with a compatible unrelated donor may be considered. When the choice is a DD kidney, the decision-making process in accepting a donor offer requires careful consideration of donor history, kidney donor profile index, HLA matching, cold ischemia time, and recipient's time on the waiting list. Accepting or declining a DD offer in a timely manner can be challenging when there are undesirable facts in the donor's history which need to be balanced against prolonging dialysis in a child. An ongoing global challenge is the significant gap between organ supply and demand, which has increased the need to improve organ preservation techniques and awareness for organ donation.

The effect of the National Kidney Registry on the kidney-exchange market

We assess the causal effect of the National Kidney Registry (NKR), the largest national kidney-exchange network in the U.S., on kidney-exchange outcomes. Analyzing a unique database hosted by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) that contains information on all kidney donors, wait-listed candidates, and transplant recipients in the U.S., we find that patients in an NKR hospital are 2.5-3 times more likely than their counterparts in a non-NKR hospital to receive a transplant from a living donor, conditional on wait-time. At the same time, NKR participation does not have a significant effect on the desirability of donors and the health status of recipients. We employ various approaches to ensure our finding is robust in addressing the non-random sorting of patients and donors. As far as the outcomes we study, the expansion of the NKR brings about an overall positive impact on the kidney exchange market.

Patient and Kidney Allograft Survival with National Kidney Paired Donation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the United States, kidney paired donation networks have facilitated an increasing proportion of kidney transplants annually, but transplant outcome differences beyond 5 years between paired donation and other living donor kidney transplant recipients have not been well described.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using registry-linked data, we compared National Kidney Registry (n=2363) recipients to control kidney transplant recipients (n=54,497) (February 2008 to December 2017). We estimated the risk of death-censored graft failure and mortality using inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression. The parsimonious model adjusted for recipient factors (age, sex, black, race, body mass index ≥30 kg/m², diabetes, previous transplant, preemptive transplant, public insurance, hepatitis C, eGFR, antibody depleting induction therapy, year of transplant), donor factors (age, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, body mass index ≥30 kg/m²), and transplant factors (zero HLA mismatch).

RESULTS

National Kidney Registry recipients were more likely to be women, black, older, on public insurance, have panel reactive antibodies >80%, spend longer on dialysis, and be previous transplant recipients. National Kidney Registry recipients were followed for a median 3.7 years (interquartile range, 2.1-5.6; maximum 10.9 years). National Kidney Registry recipients had similar graft failure (5% versus 6%; log-rank P=0.2) and mortality (9% versus 10%; log-rank P=0.4) incidence compared with controls during follow-up. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and transplant factors, there no detectable difference in graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.18; P=0.6) or mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.07; P=0.2) between National Kidney Registry and control recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after transplanting patients with greater risk factors for worse post-transplant outcomes, nationalized paired donation results in equivalent outcomes when compared with control living donor kidney transplant recipients.

The 6-year clinical outcomes for patients registered in a multiregional United States Kidney Paired Donation program - a retrospective study

We examined what happened during a 6-year period to 1121 end-stage renal disease patients who registered with their willing/incompatible living donors for kidney exchanges with the Alliance for Paired Donation (APD). Of all patients, 65% were transplanted: 37% in kidney paired donation (APD-KPD, APD-other-KPD); 10% with compatible live donors (APD-LD); and 18% with deceased donors (APD-DD). The remaining patients were withdrawn (sick/died/others; 15%), or were still waiting (20%). For those patients with a cPRA 0-94%, 72% received a transplant. In contrast, only 49% of very highly sensitized (VHS; cPRA 95-100%) were transplanted. Of the VHS patients, 50% were transplanted by KPD/APD-LD while 50% benefited through prioritization of deceased donors in the modified kidney allocation system (KAS introduced in 2014). All APD transplanted groups had similar death-censored 4-year graft survivals as their relevant Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) groups. It is noteworthy that VHS graft and patient survival results were comparable to less sensitized and nonsensitized patients. All patients should be encouraged to search for compatible donors through different options. Expanding the donor pool through KPD and the new KAS of the OPTN increases the likelihood of transplantation for VHS patients.

Living Kidney Donation: Strategies to Increase the Donor Pool

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a significant health care burden. Although kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment modality, less than 25% of waiting list patients are transplanted because of organ shortage. Living kidney donation can lead to better recipient and graft survival and increase the number of donors. Not all ESRD patients have potential living donors, and not all living donors are a compatible match to recipients. Kidney paired exchanges allow incompatible pairs to identify compatible living donors for living donor kidney transplants for multiple recipients. Innovative modifications of kidney paired donation can increase the number of kidney transplants, with excellent outcomes.

The first 9 years of kidney paired donation through the National Kidney Registry: Characteristics of donors and recipients compared with National Live Donor Transplant Registries

The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P < .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA >80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs.

Socioeconomic Status in Non-directed and Voucher-based Living Kidney Donation

BACKGROUND

Little has been reported about the socioeconomic status (SES) and demographics of non-directed (altruistic) and voucher-based donation.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze common characteristics amongst altruistic donors in order to promote non-directed and voucher-based donation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Information regarding altruistic donations from 2008 to 2015 and voucher-based donors was obtained from the National Kidney Registry.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

An SES index, created and validated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), was created by geocoding the donor's zip code and linking it to seven publicly available SES variables found in the 2010 United States Census data.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 267 non-directed and 3 voucher-based donations were identified. Non-directed donors were predominantly female (58%), with an average age of 45.6 yr (range, 21-72). The mean SES index score was 55.6 (SD=3.2), which corresponds to the 77th percentile of 1.5 million MediCare beneficiaries as reported by the AHRQ in 2008. Voucher-based donors were Caucasian males of high SES. The study was limited by the number of voucher-based donations.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-directed and voucher-based donors are in the upper end of the economic spectrum. The voucher-based program has built within it the inherent capacity to remove disincentives to donation, which currently limit altruistic donation.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We wanted to determine what types of people donated their kidneys altruistically, so that we could understand how to motivate more people to donate their kidneys. The voucher-based program was recently started and is a promising tool to motivate many people to donate kidneys by removing major disincentives to donation.

Donating Another Person's Kidney: Avoiding the Discard of Organs by Retransplantation

BACKGROUND

Procurement and retransplantation of a previously transplanted kidney reclaim a functioning organ that would otherwise have been discarded.

METHODS

Case series of 3 retransplantation cases within the course of 1 calendar year.

RESULTS

These cases illustrate how to overcome the immunological, logistical, and technical barriers that have thus far limited the potential of this approach. Within this series, we report kidney reuse weeks and years after the original transplantation, as well as the previously undescribed "living donation of a deceased donor kidney".

CONCLUSIONS

Retransplantation of previously transplanted kidneys can be performed successfully and should be considered in the face of the current organ shortage.

Liver paired exchange: Can the liver emulate the kidney?

Kidney paired exchange (KPE) constitutes 12% of all living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) in the United States. The success of KPE programs has prompted many in the liver transplant community to consider the possibility of liver paired exchange (LPE). Though the idea seems promising, the application has been limited to a handful of centers in Asia. In this article, we consider the indications, logistical issues, and ethics for establishing a LPE program in the United States with reference to the principles and advances developed from experience with KPE. Liver Transplantation 24 677-686 2018 AASLD.

Effect of match-run frequencies on the number of transplants and waiting times in kidney exchange

Numerous kidney exchange (kidney paired donation [KPD]) registries in the United States have gradually shifted to high-frequency match-runs, raising the question of whether this harms the number of transplants. We conducted simulations using clinical data from 2 KPD registries-the Alliance for Paired Donation, which runs multihospital exchanges, and Methodist San Antonio, which runs single-center exchanges-to study how the frequency of match-runs impacts the number of transplants and the average waiting times. We simulate the options facing each of the 2 registries by repeated resampling from their historical pools of patient-donor pairs and nondirected donors, with arrival and departure rates corresponding to the historical data. We find that longer intervals between match-runs do not increase the total number of transplants, and that prioritizing highly sensitized patients is more effective than waiting longer between match-runs for transplanting highly sensitized patients. While we do not find that frequent match-runs result in fewer transplanted pairs, we do find that increasing arrival rates of new pairs improves both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times.

Shipping living donor kidneys and transplant recipient outcomes

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Concerns remain over prolonged cold ischemia times (CIT) associated with shipping kidneys long distances through KPD. We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and patient survival for 1267 shipped and 205 nonshipped/internal KPD LDKTs facilitated by the National Kidney Registry in the United States from 2008 to 2015, compared to 4800 unrelated, nonshipped, non-KPD LDKTs. Shipped KPD recipients had a median CIT of 9.3 hours (range = 0.25-23.9 hours), compared to 1.0 hour for internal KPD transplants and 0.93 hours for non-KPD LDKTs. Each hour of CIT was associated with a 5% increased odds of DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09, P < .01). However, there was not a significant association between CIT and all-cause graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98-1.04, P = .4), death-censored graft failure ( [aHR]: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98-1.06, P = .4), or mortality (aHR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.96-1.04, P > .9). This study of KPD-facilitated LDKTs found no evidence that long CIT is a concern for reduced graft or patient survival. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to refine our understanding of the safety of shipping donor kidneys through KPD.

Advanced Donation Programs and Deceased Donor-Initiated Chains-2 Innovations in Kidney Paired Donation

Kidney paired donation (KPD) strategies have facilitated compatible living-donor kidney transplants for end-stage renal disease patients with willing but incompatible living donors. Success has inspired further innovations that expand opportunities for kidney-paired donation. Two such innovations are the advanced donation strategy in which a donor provides a kidney before their recipient is matched, or even in need of, a kidney transplant, and deceased donor initiated chains in which chains are started with deceased donors rather than altruistic living donors. Although these innovations may expand KPD, they raise several ethical issues. Specific concerns raised by advanced donation include the management of uncertainty, the extent of donor and recipient consent, the scope of the obligation that the organization has to the kidney exchange paired recipient, the naming of alternative recipients, and the potential to unfairly advantage the recipient. Use of deceased donors for chain-initiating kidneys raises ethical issues concerning the consent process for each involved party, the prioritization of deceased donor kidneys, the allocation of chain ending kidneys, and the value of a living donor kidney versus a deceased donor kidney. We outline each ethical issue and discuss how it can be conceptualized and managed so that these KPD innovations programs are ultimately successful.

Vouchers for Future Kidney Transplants to Overcome "Chronological Incompatibility" Between Living Donors and Recipients

BACKGROUND

The waiting list for kidney transplantation is long. The creation of "vouchers" for future kidney transplants enables living donation to occur when optimal for the donor and transplantation to occur later, when and if needed by the recipient.

METHODS

The donation of a kidney at a time that is optimal for the donor generates a "voucher" that only a specified recipient may redeem later when needed. The voucher provides the recipient with priority in being matched with a living donor from the end of a future transplantation chain. Besides its use in persons of advancing age with a limited window for donation, vouchers remove a disincentive to kidney donation, namely, a reluctance to donate now lest one's family member should need a transplant in the future.

RESULTS

We describe the first three voucher cases, in which advancing age might otherwise have deprived the donors the opportunity to provide a kidney to a family member. These 3 voucher donations functioned in a nondirected fashion and triggered 25 transplants through kidney paired donation across the United States.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of a voucher to potential recipients whose need for a transplant makes them "chronologically incompatible" with their donors may increase the number of living donor transplants.

Broken Chains and Reneging: A Review of 1748 Kidney Paired Donation Transplants

Concerns regarding the potential for broken chains and "reneges" within kidney paired donation (KPD) and its effect on chain length have been raised previously. Although these concerns have been tested in simulation studies, real-world data have yet to be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the actual rate and causes of broken chains within a large KPD program. All patients undergoing renal transplantation through the National Kidney Registry from 2008 through May 2016 were included for analysis. Broken chains and loops were identified. A total of 344 chains and 78 loops were completed during the study period, yielding a total of 1748 transplants. Twenty broken chains and one broken loop were identified. The mean chain length (number of transplants) within broken chains was 4.8 compared with 4.6 of completed chains (p = 0.78). The most common causes of a broken chain were donor medical issues incurred while acting as a bridge donor (n = 8), donors electing not to proceed (n = 6), and kidneys being declined by the recipient surgeon (n = 4). All recipients involved in a broken chain subsequently received a transplant. Based on the results, broken chains are infrequent, are rarely due to lack of donor motivation, and have no significant impact on chain length.

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Kidney paired exchange and desensitization: Strategies to transplant the difficult to match kidney patients with living donors

With organs in short supply, only a limited number of kidney transplants can be performed a year. Live donor donation accounts for 1/3rd of all kidney transplants performed in the United States. Unfortunately, not every donor recipient pair is feasible because of Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization and ABO incompatibility. To overcome these barriers to transplant, strategies such as kidney paired donation (KPD) and desensitization have been developed. KPD is the exchange of donors between at least two incompatible donor-recipient pairs such that they are now compatible. Desensitization is the removal of circulating donor specific antibodies to prevent graft rejection. Regardless of the treatment strategy, highly sensitized patients whose calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) is ≥95% remain difficult to transplant with match rates as low as 15% in KPD pools. Desensitization has proved to be difficult in those with high antibody titers. A novel approach is the combination of both KPD and desensitization to facilitate compatible and successful transplantation. A highly sensitized patient can be paired with a better immunological match in the KPD pool and subsequently desensitized to a lesser degree. This article reviews the current progress in KPD and desensitization and their use as a combined therapy.

HLA Matching Trumps Donor Age: Donor-Recipient Pairing Characteristics That Impact Long-Term Success in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in the Era of Paired Kidney Exchange

BACKGROUND

We sought to identify donor characteristics influencing long-term graft survival, expressed by a novel measure, kidney life years (KLYs), in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

METHODS

Cox and multiple regression analyses were applied to data from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Research from 1987 to 2015. Dependent variable was KLYs.

RESULTS

Living donor kidney transplantation (129 273) were performed from 1987 to 2013 in the United States. To allow sufficient time to assess long-term results, outcomes of LDKTs between 1987 and 2001 were analyzed. After excluding cases where a patient died with a functioning graft (8301) or those missing HLA data (9), 40 371 cases were analyzed. Of 18 independent variables, the focus became the 4 variables that were the most statistically and clinically significant in that they are potentially modifiable in donor selection (P <0.0001; ie, HLA match points, donor sex, donor biological sibling and donor age). HLA match points had the strongest relationship with KLYs, was associated with the greatest tendency toward graft longevity on Cox regression, and had the largest increase in KLYs (2.0 year increase per 50 antigen Match Points) based on multiple regression.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases when a patient has multiple potential donors, such as through paired exchange, graft life might be extended when a donor with favorable matching characteristics is selected.

Utilization of Deceased Donor Kidneys to Initiate Living Donor Chains

We propose that some deceased donor (DD) kidneys be allocated to initiate nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor chains of living donor (LD) kidney transplants to address, in part, the huge disparity between patients on the DD kidney waitlist and available donors. The use of DD kidneys for this purpose would benefit waitlisted candidates in that most patients enrolled in kidney paired donation (KPD) systems are also waitlisted for a DD kidney transplant, and receiving a kidney through the mechanism of KPD will decrease pressure on the DD pool. In addition, a LD kidney usually provides survival potential equal or superior to that of DD kidneys. If KPD chains that are initiated by a DD can end in a donation of an LD kidney to a candidate on the DD waitlist, the quality of the kidney allocated to a waitlisted patient is likely to be improved. We hypothesize that a pilot program would show a positive impact on patients of all ethnicities and blood types.

Historical Matching Strategies in Kidney Paired Donation: The 7-Year Evolution of a Web-Based Virtual Matching System

Failure to convert computer-identified possible kidney paired donation (KPD) exchanges into transplants has prohibited KPD from reaching its full potential. This study analyzes the progress of exchanges in moving from "offers" to completed transplants. Offers were divided into individual segments called 1-way transplants in order to calculate success rates. From 2007 to 2014, the Alliance for Paired Donation performed 243 transplants, 31 in collaboration with other KPD registries and 194 independently. Sixty-one of 194 independent transplants (31.4%) occurred via cycles, while the remaining 133 (68.6%) resulted from nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor (NEAD) chains. Thirteen of 35 (37.1%) NEAD chains with at least three NEAD segments accounted for 68% of chain transplants (8.6 tx/chain). The "offer" and 1-way success rates were 21.9 and 15.5%, respectively. Three reasons for failure were found that could be prospectively prevented by changes in protocol or software: positive laboratory crossmatch (28%), transplant center declined donor (17%) and pair transplanted outside APD (14%). Performing a root cause analysis on failures in moving from offer to transplant has allowed the APD to improve protocols and software. These changes have improved the success rate and the number of transplants performed per year.

The Incorporation of an Advanced Donation Program Into Kidney Paired Exchange: Initial Experience of the National Kidney Registry

The continued growth of kidney paired donation (KPD) to facilitate transplantation for otherwise incompatible or suboptimal living kidney donors and recipients has depended on a balance between the logistics required for patients and the collaborating transplant centers. The formation of chains for KPD and the shipping of kidneys have permitted networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) to offer KPD to patients over a transcontinental area. However, over the last 3 years, we have encountered patient requests for a more flexible experience in KPD to meet their individual needs often due to rigid time constraints. To accommodate these requests, we have developed an Advanced Donation Program (ADP) in which the donor desires to donate by a specific date, but their paired recipient has not yet been matched to a specific donor or scheduled for surgery. After obtaining careful informed consent from both the donor and paired recipient, 10 KPD chains were constructed using an ADP donor. These 10 ADP donors have facilitated 47 transplants, and thus far eight of their paired recipients have received a kidney within a mean of 178 (range 10-562) days. The ADP is a viable method to support time limited donors in a KPD network.

Assessing the efficacy of kidney paired donation--performance of an integrated three-site program

BACKGROUND

Kidney paired donation (KPD) has emerged as a viable option for renal transplant candidates with incompatible living donors. The aim of this study was to assess the "performance" of a three-site KPD program that allowed screening of multiple donors per recipient.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospectively the activity of our KPD program involving three centers under the same institutional umbrella. The primary goal was to achieve a transplant that was both ABO compatible and had a negative or low-positive flow cytometric crossmatch (+XM).

RESULTS

During the 40-month study period, 114 kidney transplant candidates were enrolled-57% resulting from a +XM and 39% resulting from ABO incompatible (ABOi) donors. Important outcomes were as follows: (1) 81 (71%) candidates received a transplant and 33 (29%) were still waiting; (2) 368 donors were evaluated, including 10 nondirected donors; (3) 82% (37/45) of ABOi candidates underwent transplantation; (4) 56% (36/65) of +XM candidates underwent transplantation (however, all but four of these had a cPRA less than 95%); (5) at the end of the study period, 97% (28/29) of +XM candidates still waiting had a cPRA greater than 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest evaluating large numbers of donors increases the chances of KPD. Patients with a cPRA greater than 95% are unlikely to receive a negative or low-positive +XM, suggesting the need for desensitization protocols in KPD.

Center-defined unacceptable HLA antigens facilitate transplants for sensitized patients in a multi-center kidney exchange program

Multi-center kidney paired donation (KPD) is an exciting new transplant option that has not yet approached its full potential. One barrier to progress is accurate virtual crossmatching for KPD waitlists with many highly sensitized patients. Virtual crossmatch results from a large multi-center consortium, the National Kidney Registry (NKR), were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of flexible center-specific criteria for virtual crossmatching. Approximately two-thirds of the patients on the NKR waitlist are highly sensitized (>80% CPRA). These patients have antibodies against HLA-A (63%), HLA-B (66%), HLA-C (41%), HLA-DRB1 (60%), HLA-DRB3/4/5 (18-22%), HLA-DQB1 (54%) and HLA-DPB1 (26%). With donors typed for these loci before activation, 91% of virtual crossmatches accurately predicted an acceptable cell-based donor crossmatch. Failed virtual crossmatches were attributed to equivocal virtual crossmatches (46%), changes in HLA antibodies (21%), antibodies against HLA-DQA (6%), transcription errors (6%), suspected non-HLA antibodies (5%), allele-specific antibodies (1%) and unknown causes (15%). Some failed crossmatches could be prevented by modifiable factors such as more frequent assessment of HLA antibodies, DQA1 typing of donors and auditing data entry. Importantly, when transplant centers have flexibility to define crossmatch criteria, it is currently feasible to use virtual crossmatching for highly sensitized patients to reliably predict acceptable cell-based crossmatches.

Diagnosis and management of antibody-mediated rejection: current status and novel approaches

Advances in multimodal immunotherapy have significantly reduced acute rejection rates and substantially improved 1-year graft survival following renal transplantation. However, long-term (10-year) survival rates have stagnated over the past decade. Recent studies indicate that antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is among the most important barriers to improving long-term outcomes. Improved understanding of the roles of acute and chronic ABMR has evolved in recent years following major progress in the technical ability to detect and quantify recipient anti-HLA antibody production. Additionally, new knowledge of the immunobiology of B cells and plasma cells that pertains to allograft rejection and tolerance has emerged. Still, questions regarding the classification of ABMR, the precision of diagnostic approaches, and the efficacy of various strategies for managing affected patients abound. This review article provides an overview of current thinking and research surrounding the pathophysiology and diagnosis of ABMR, ABMR-related outcomes, ABMR prevention and treatment, as well as possible future directions in treatment.

The decline in living kidney donation in the United States: random variation or cause for concern?

The annual number of living kidney donors in the United States peaked at 6647 in 2004. The preceding decade saw a 120% increase in living kidney donation. However, since 2004, living kidney donation has declined in all but 1 year, resulting in a 13% decline in the annual number of living kidney donors from 2004 to 2011. The proportional decline in living kidney donation has been more pronounced among men, blacks, younger adults, siblings, and parents. In this article, we explore several possible explanations for the decline in living kidney donation, including an increase in medical unsuitability, an aging transplant patient population, financial disincentives, public policies, and shifting practice patterns, among others. We conclude that the decline in living donation is not merely reflective of random variation but one that warrants action by the transplant centers, the broader transplant community, and the state and national governments.

Kidney paired donation in the presence of donor-specific antibodies

Incompatible donor/recipient pairs with broadly sensitized recipients have difficulty finding a crossmatch-compatible match, despite a large kidney paired donation pool. One approach to this problem is to combine kidney paired donation with lower-risk crossmatch-incompatible transplantation with intravenous immunoglobulin. Whether this strategy is non-inferior compared with transplantation of sensitized patients without donor-specific antibody (DSA) is unknown. Here we used a protocol including a virtual crossmatch to identify acceptable crossmatch-incompatible donors and the administration of intravenous immunoglobulin to transplant 12 HLA-sensitized patients (median calculated panel reactive antibody 98%) with allografts from our kidney paired donation program. This group constituted the DSA(+) kidney paired donation group. We compared rates of rejection and survival between the DSA(+) kidney paired donation group with a similar group of 10 highly sensitized patients (median calculated panel reactive antibody 85%) that underwent DSA(-) kidney paired donation transplantation without intravenous immunoglobulin. At median follow-up of 22 months, the DSA(+) kidney paired donation group had patient and graft survival of 100%. Three patients in the DSA(+) kidney paired donation group experienced antibody-mediated rejection. Patient and graft survival in the DSA(-) kidney paired donation recipients was 100% at median follow-up of 18 months. No rejection occurred in the DSA(-) kidney paired donation group. Thus, our study provides a clinical framework through which kidney paired donation can be performed with acceptable outcomes across a crossmatch-incompatible transplant.

Center-level utilization of kidney paired donation

With many multicenter consortia and a United Network for Organ Sharing program, participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) has become mainstream in the United States and should be feasible for any center that performs live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Lack of participation in KPD may significantly disadvantage patients with incompatible donors. To explore utilization of this modality, we analyzed adjusted center-specific KPD rates based on casemix of adult LDKT-eligible patients at 207 centers between 2006 and 2011 using SRTR data. From 2006 to 2008, KPD transplants became more evenly distributed across centers, but from 2008 to 2011 the distribution remained unchanged (Gini coefficient = 0.91 for 2006, 0.76 for 2008 and 0.77 for 2011), showing an unfortunate stall in dissemination. At the 10% of centers with the highest KPD rates, 9.9-38.5% of LDKTs occurred through KPD during 2009-2011; if all centers adopted KPD at rates observed in the very high-KPD centers, the number of KPD transplants per year would increase by a factor of 3.2 (from 494 to 1593). Broader implementation of KPD across a wide number of centers is crucial to properly serve transplant candidates with healthy but incompatible live donors.

Dynamic challenges inhibiting optimal adoption of kidney paired donation: findings of a consensus conference

While kidney paired donation (KPD) enables the utilization of living donor kidneys from healthy and willing donors incompatible with their intended recipients, the strategy poses complex challenges that have limited its adoption in United States and Canada. A consensus conference was convened March 29-30, 2012 to address the dynamic challenges and complexities of KPD that inhibit optimal implementation. Stakeholders considered donor evaluation and care, histocompatibility testing, allocation algorithms, financing, geographic challenges and implementation strategies with the goal to safely maximize KPD at every transplant center. Best practices, knowledge gaps and research goals were identified and summarized in this document.