Repeated kidney re‐transplantation—the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis

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.

Comparative Study of the Impact of Human Leukocyte Antigens on Renal Transplant Survival in Andalusia and the United States

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients suffering from chronic renal disease, one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Among the biological barriers that may increase the risk of acute renal graft rejection is the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) incompatibilities between donor and recipient. This work presents a comparative study of the influence of HLA incompatibilities on renal transplantation survival in the Andalusian (South of Spain) and United States (US) population. The main objective is to analyse the extent to which results about the influence of different factors on renal graft survival can be generalised to different populations. The Kaplan-Meier estimator and the Cox model have been used to identify and quantify the impact on the survival probability of HLA incompatibilities, both in isolation and in conjunction with other factors associated with the donor and recipient. According to the results obtained, HLA incompatibilities considered in isolation have negligible impact on renal survival in the Andalusian population and a moderate impact in the US population. Grouping by HLA score presents some similarities for both populations, while the sum of all HLA scores (aHLA) only has an impact on the US population. Finally, the graft survival probability of the two populations differs when aHLA is considered in conjunction with blood type. The results suggest that the disparities in the renal graft survival probability between the two populations under study are due not only to biological and transplantation-associated factors, but also to social-health factors and ethnic heterogeneity between populations.

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.

How to Deal With Kidney Retransplantation-Second, Third, Fourth, and Beyond

Kidney transplantation is the best health option for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Ideally, a kidney transplant would last for the lifetime of each recipient. However, depending on the age of the recipient and details of the kidney transplant, there may be a need for a second, third, fourth, or even more kidney transplants. In this overview, the outcome of multiple kidney transplants for an individual is presented. Key issues include surgical approach and immunologic concerns. Included in the surgical approach is an analysis of transplant nephrectomy, with indications, timing, and immunologic impact. Allograft thrombosis, whether related to donor or recipient factors merits investigation to prevent it from happening again. Other posttransplant events such as rejection, viral illness (polyomavirus hominis type I), recurrent disease (focal segmental glomerulosclerosis), and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease may lead to the need for retransplantation. The pediatric recipient is especially likely to need a subsequent kidney transplant. Finally, noncompliance/nonadherence can affect both adults and children. Innovative approaches may reduce the need for retransplantation in the future.

Repeated kidney re-transplantation in times of organ shortage - a critical review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Organ shortage forces those responsible to streamline allocation rules to provide a maximum of candidates with a graft and to optimize transplant outcome. Recently, repeated kidney re-transplantation was investigated in several studies with different analytic settings concerning the control group, the donors, parameters influencing outcome, and demographic characteristics. This review gives an overview on the candidates awaiting a repeated re-transplantation, summarizes the outcome, and comments on the relevance of these findings in the context of sustained organ shortage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repeated kidney re-transplantation is technically and immunologically feasible and the recipients' survival is better compared to candidates remaining on dialysis or on the waiting-list. However, the outcome is mainly reported to be worse as compared to first or second kidney transplantation. Kidneys from living donors seem to have a favorable impact on outcome in this setting.

SUMMARY

The survival benefit of repeated re-transplantation recipients over patients on dialysis demands for continuation of this procedure. Comprehensive registries are essential to continuously optimize allocation. Governmental authorities are obliged to set the course to increase organ donation rather than forcing transplant decision makers to withhold a third or fourth graft from any candidate.

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.

What happens after graft loss? A large, long-term, single-center observation

The number of patients returning to dialysis after graft failure increases. Surprisingly, little is known about the clinical and immunological outcomes of this cohort. We retrospectively analyzed 254 patients after kidney allograft loss between 1997 and 2017 and report clinical outcomes such as mortality, relisting, retransplantations, transplant nephrectomies, and immunization status. Of the 254 patients, 49% had died 5 years after graft loss, while 27% were relisted, 14% were on dialysis and not relisted, and only 11% were retransplanted 5 years after graft loss. In the complete observational period, 111/254 (43.7%) patients were relisted. Of these, 72.1% of patients were under 55 years of age at time of graft loss and only 13.5% of patients were ≥65 years. Age at graft loss was associated with relisting in a logistic regression analysis. In the complete observational period, 42 patients (16.5%) were retransplanted. Only 4 of those (9.5%) were ≥65 years at time of graft loss. Nephrectomy had no impact on survival, relisting, or development of dnDSA. Patients after allograft loss have a high overall mortality. Immunization contributes to long waiting times. Only a very limited number of patients are retransplanted especially when ≥65 years at time of graft loss.

Outcomes of first versus third kidney transplantations: propensity score matching and paired subgroup analysis-a single-centre experience

Background

In the Eurotransplant, 12.6% of kidney transplantations are a repeat procedure. Third transplants are significantly more complex than first and second ones. We compared the results of first (PRT) versus third (TRT) transplantations.

Methods

Between 2011 and 2016, we performed 779 deceased donor adult kidney transplantations, 14.2% out of them were second, 2.6% (20) third, and 0.3% fourth. We compared the pre-, intra-, and postoperative data, kidney function, and survival rate.

Results

Recipients of TRT were younger (53.4 vs. 47.3 p = 0.02). HCV infection rate (20%, p = 0.00) is ten times higher. The operation time is longer (132 vs. 152 min, p = 0.02), and delayed graft function is much more frequent (22.4% vs. 60%, p = 0.00). Induction therapy was given to every TRT (7.9% vs.100%), but as a result, the rejection rate was the same (~ 15%). Hospital stay is a week longer. Patient’s survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for PRT is 96.4%, 93.9%, and 91.2% and for TRT is 90%, 85%, and 78.4%, respectively (p = 0.023). TRT’s odds ratio of fatal outcome is 4.35 (1.5–12.5). Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years for PRT is 93.1%, 91.4%, and 90.3% and for TRT is 75%, 75%, and 75%, respectively (p = 0.020). TRT’s odds ratio of graft loss is 3.14 (1.1–8.9). Of PRT 85.76%, out of PRT 85.76%, while out of TRT 60% live with a functioning graft, p=0.00149.

Conclusion

In a third transplant, both graft and patient survival are significantly inferior to primer ones. Careful selection is required to minimize the patient risk and graft loss.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Improves Graft and Recipient Survival in Patients with Multiple Kidney Transplants

Background: Failed kidney transplant recipients benefit from a new graft as the general incident dialysis population, although additional challenges in the management of these patients are often limiting the long-term outcomes. Previously failed grafts, a long history of comorbidities, side effects of long-term immunosuppression and previous surgical interventions are common characteristics in the repeated kidney transplantation population, leading to significant complex immunological and technical aspects and often compromising the short- and long-term results. Although recipients’ factors are acknowledged to represent one of the main determinants for graft and patient survival, there is increasing interest in expanding the donor’s pool safely, particularly for high-risk candidates. The role of living kidney donation in this peculiar context of repeated kidney transplantation has not been assessed thoroughly. The aim of the present study is to analyse the effects of a high-quality graft, such as the one retrieved from living kidney donors, in the repeated kidney transplant population context. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the outcomes of the repeated kidney transplant population at our institution from 1968 to 2019. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and stratified according to the number of transplants: 1st, 2nd or 3rd+. The main outcomes were graft and patient survivals, recorded from time of transplant to graft failure (return to dialysis) and censored at patient death with a functioning graft. Duration of renal replacement therapy was expressed as cumulative time per month. A multivariate analysis considering death-censored graft survival, decade of transplantation, recipient age, donor age, living donor, transplant number, ischaemic time, time on renal replacement therapy prior to transplant and HLA mismatch at HLA-A, -B and -DR was conducted. In the multivariate analysis of recipient survival, diabetic nephropathy as primary renal disease was also included. Results: A total of 2395 kidney transplant recipients were analysed: 2062 (83.8%) with the 1st kidney transplant, 279 (11.3%) with the 2nd graft, 46 (2.2%) with the 3rd+. Mean age of 1st kidney transplant recipients was 43.6 ± 16.3 years, versus 39.9 ± 14.4 for 2nd and 41.4 ± 11.5 for 3rd+ (p < 0.001). Aside from being younger, repeated kidney transplant patients were also more often males (p = 0.006), with a longer time spent on renal replacement therapy (p < 0.0001) and a higher degree of sensitisation, expressed as calculated reaction frequency (p < 0.001). There was also an association between multiple kidney transplants and better HLA match at transplantation (p < 0.0001). A difference in death-censored graft survival by number of transplants was seen, with a median graft survival of 328 months for recipients of the 1st transplant, 209 months for the 2nd and 150 months for the 3rd+ (p = 0.038). The same difference was seen in deceased donor kidneys (p = 0.048), but not in grafts from living donors (p = 0.2). Patient survival was comparable between the three groups (p = 0.59). Conclusions: In the attempt to expand the organ donor pool, particular attention should be reserved to high complex recipients, such as the repeated kidney transplant population. In this peculiar context, the quality of the donor has been shown to represent a main determinant for graft survival—in fact, kidney retrieved from living donors provide comparable outcomes to those from single-graft recipients.