Histopathology and Long-Term Outcome of Kidneys Transplanted From Donors With Severe Acute Kidney Injury

Galileo-an Artificial Intelligence tool for evaluating pre-implantation kidney biopsies

BACKGROUND

Pre-transplant procurement biopsy interpretation is challenging, also because of the low number of renal pathology experts. Artificial intelligence (AI) can assist by aiding pathologists with kidney donor biopsy assessment. Herein we present the "Galileo" AI tool, designed specifically to assist the on-call pathologist with interpreting pre-implantation kidney biopsies.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort of whole slide images acquired from core-needle and wedge biopsies of the kidney was collected. A deep learning algorithm was trained to detect the main findings evaluated in the pre-implantation setting (normal glomeruli, globally sclerosed glomeruli, ischemic glomeruli, arterioles and arteries). The model obtained on the Aiforia Create platform was validated on an external dataset by three independent pathologists to evaluate the performance of the algorithm.

RESULTS

Galileo demonstrated a precision, sensitivity, F1 score and total area error of 81.96%, 94.39%, 87.74%, 2.81% and 74.05%, 71.03%, 72.5%, 2% in the training and validation sets, respectively. Galileo was significantly faster than pathologists, requiring 2 min overall in the validation phase (vs 25, 22 and 31 min by 3 separate human readers, p < 0.001). Galileo-assisted detection of renal structures and quantitative information was directly integrated in the final report.

CONCLUSIONS

The Galileo AI-assisted tool shows promise in speeding up pre-implantation kidney biopsy interpretation, as well as in reducing inter-observer variability. This tool may represent a starting point for further improvements based on hard endpoints such as graft survival.

Short-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term Outcomes after Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation in Patients with AKI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Key Points

This study reviews the willingness to use kidneys from donors who have experienced AKI during transplantation and provides a thorough analysis of the existing literature. While delayed graft function is more common, primary nonfunction and acute rejection rates appear comparable, as do allograft function and graft survival compared with non-AKI donor kidneys. Considering the shortage of available organs and the high mortality rate of patients on dialysis, the use of donors with AKI as a source for kidney transplantation is a viable alternative.

Background

AKI is a common complication in hospitalized patients and may occur in potential kidney donors. Observational studies have suggested that kidney transplantation in patients with AKI is feasible and safe, but no systematic evaluation has been performed.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of kidney transplantation in patients with AKI. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and other databases for studies reporting outcomes of donor kidneys with AKI. We included single-center, multicenter, and registry-based studies and analyzed them according to the definition and severity of AKI. End points were primary and delayed graft function (DGF), primary nonfunction (PNF), length of hospital stay, rejection, graft function, and patient and graft survival at 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 years after transplantation. This study was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42021260088.

Results

We identified 33 single-center, four multicenter, and seven registry studies with more than 100,000 patients published between 2005 and 2022. Recipients from donors with AKI had a higher risk of DGF (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 1.68). Graft function at discharge was worse in the AKI group (MDCrea [95% CI]: 0.96 mg/dl [0.36 to 1.56, I2=96%], MDGFR [95% CI]: −8.88 ml/min per 1.73 m2 [−15.32 to −2.44, I2=93%]), but improved thereafter and was similar in both groups at 3 months after transplantation (MDCrea [95% CI]: −0.05 mg/dl [−0.18 to 0.07, I2=0%], MDGFR [95% CI]: −1.83 ml/min per 1.73 m2 [−5.29 to 1.63, I2=91%]). Primary nonfunction and patient and graft survival were similar at 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 years after transplantation. There were no differences in rejections regardless of AKI definition and severity.

Conclusions

Transplantation of kidneys with AKI is associated with satisfactory short-term and long-term outcomes and should be pursued to increase the donor pool.

Evaluating the Effects of Kidney Preservation at 10 °C with Hemopure and Sodium Thiosulfate in a Rat Model of Syngeneic Orthotopic Kidney Transplantation

Kidney transplantation is preferred for end-stage renal disease. The current gold standard for kidney preservation is static cold storage (SCS) at 4 °C. However, SCS contributes to renal graft damage through ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI). We previously reported renal graft protection after SCS with a hydrogen sulfide donor, sodium thiosulfate (STS), at 4 °C. Therefore, this study aims to investigate whether SCS at 10 °C with STS and Hemopure (blood substitute), will provide similar protection. Using in vitro model of IRI, we subjected rat renal proximal tubular epithelial cells to hypoxia-reoxygenation for 24 h at 10 °C with or without STS and measured cell viability. In vivo, we preserved 36 donor kidneys of Lewis rats for 24 h in a preservation solution at 10 °C supplemented with STS, Hemopure, or both followed by transplantation. Tissue damage and recipient graft function parameters, including serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, urine osmolality, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR), were evaluated. STS-treated proximal tubular epithelial cells exhibited enhanced viability at 10 °C compared with untreated control cells (p < 0.05). Also, STS and Hemopure improved renal graft function compared with control grafts (p < 0.05) in the early time period after the transplant, but long-term function did not reach significance. Overall, renal graft preservation at 10 °C with STS and Hemopure supplementation has the potential to enhance graft function and reduce kidney damage, suggesting a novel approach to reducing IRI and post-transplant complications.

Acute kidney injury and the compensation of kidney function after nephrectomy in living donation

Acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence is growing rapidly, and AKI is one of the predictors of inpatient mortality. After nephrectomy, all the patients have decreased kidney function with AKI and recover from AKI. However, the characteristic and behavior of AKI is different from usual AKI and compensatory kidney function has been well known in the postoperative setting, especially in living donors. In this review, we have focused on the compensation of kidney function after nephrectomy in living donors. We discuss factors that have been identified as being associated with kidney recovery in donors including age, sex, body mass index, remnant kidney volume, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and various comorbidities.

Management of acute kidney injury in gastrointestinal tumor: An overview

Gastrointestinal tumors remain a global health problem. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication during the treatment of gastrointestinal tumors. AKI can cause a decrease in the remission rate and an increase in mortality. In this review, we analyzed the causes and risk factors for AKI in gastrointestinal tumor patients. The possible mechanisms of AKI were divided into three groups: pretreatment, intrafraction and post-treatment causes. Treatment and prevention measures were proposed according to various factors to provide guidance to clinicians and oncologists that can reduce the incidence of AKI and improve the quality of life and survival rate of gastrointestinal tumor patients.

A Review of Donor Acute Kidney Injury and Posttransplant Outcomes

Although over 90 000 people are on the kidney transplant waitlist in the United States, some kidneys that are viable for transplantation are discarded. Transplant surgeons are more likely to discard deceased donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) versus without AKI (30% versus 18%). AKI is defined using changes in creatinine from baseline. Transplant surgeons can use DonorNet data, including admission, peak, and terminal serum creatinine, and biopsy data when available to differentiate kidneys with AKI from those with chronic injury. Although chronic kidney disease is associated with reduced graft survival, an abundance of literature has demonstrated similar graft survival for deceased donors with AKI versus donors without AKI. Donors with AKI are more likely to undergo delayed graft function but have similar long-term outcomes as donors without AKI. The mechanism for similar graft survival is unclear. Some hypothesized mechanisms include (1) ischemic preconditioning; (2) posttransplant and host factors playing a greater role in long-term survival than donor factors; and (3) selection bias of transplanting only relatively healthy donor kidneys with AKI. Existing literature suggests transplanting more donor kidneys with stage 1 and 2 AKI, and cautious utilization of stage 3 AKI donors, may increase the pool of viable kidneys. Doing so can reduce the number of people who die on the waitlist by over 500 every year.

Pre-implantation kidney biopsy: value of the expertise in determining histological score and comparison with the whole organ on a series of discarded kidneys

BACKGROUND

Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys.

METHODS

46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated.

RESULTS

Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.