Does kidney transplantation with a standard or expanded criteria donor improve patient survival? Results from a Belgian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Changes in recipient and donor factors have reopened the question of survival benefits of kidney transplantation versus dialysis. METHODS: We analysed survival among 3808 adult Belgian patients waitlisted for a first deceased donor kidney transplant from 2000 to 2012. The primary outcome was mortality during the median waiting time plus 3 years of follow-up after transplantation or with continued dialysis. Outcomes were analysed separately for standard criteria donor (SCD) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney transplants. We adjusted survival analyses for recipient age (20-44, 45-64 and ≥65 years), sex and diabetes as the primary renal disease. RESULTS: Among patients ≥65 years of age, only SCD transplantation provided a significant survival benefit compared with dialysis, with a mortality of 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.2-19.9] with SCD transplantation, 20.5% (95% CI 16.1-24.6) with ECD transplantation and 24.6% (95% CI 19.4-29.5) with continued dialysis. Relative mortality risk was increased in the first months after transplantation compared with dialysis, with equivalent risk levels reached earlier with SCD than ECD transplantation in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that older patients might gain a survival benefit with SCD transplantation versus dialysis, but any survival benefit with ECD transplantation versus dialysis may be small.

Repeated kidney re-transplantation-the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis.

In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re-transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15-year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re-DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0% vs. 84.5%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re-DDRT (12.7%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re-DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.

Reconditioning by end-ischemic hypothermic in-house machine perfusion: A promising strategy to improve outcome in expanded criteria donors kidney transplantation.

This clinical study evaluates end-ischemic hypothermic machine perfusion (eHMP) in expanded criteria donors (ECD) kidneys. eHMP was initiated upon arrival of the kidney in our center and continued until transplantation. Between 11/2011 and 8/2014 eHMP was performed in 66 ECD kidneys for 369 (98-912) minutes after 863 (364-1567) minutes of cold storage (CS). In 49 of 66 cases, the contralateral kidney from the same donor was preserved by static CS only and accepted by another Eurotransplant (ET) center. Five (10.2%) of these kidneys were ultimately judged as "not transplantable" by the accepting center and discarded. After exclusion of early unrelated graft losses, 43 kidney pairs from the same donor were eligible for direct comparison of eHMP vs CS only: primary non-function and delayed graft function (DGF) were 0% vs 9.3% (P=.04) and 11.6% vs 20.9% (P=.24). There was no statistically significant difference in 1-year graft survival (eHMP vs CS only: 97.7% vs 88.4%, P=.089). In a multivariate analysis, eHMP was an independent factor for prevention of DGF (OR: 0.28, P=.041). Development of DGF was the strongest risk factor for 1-year graft failure (Renal resistance: 38.2, P<.001). In summary, eHMP is a promising reconditioning technique to improve the quality and acceptance rate of suboptimal grafts.

High-urgency kidney transplantation in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System: success or waste of organs? The Eurotransplant 15-year all-centre survey.

BACKGROUND: In the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS), transplant candidates can be considered for high-urgency (HU) status in case of life-threatening inability to undergo renal replacement therapy. Data on the outcomes of HU transplantation are sparse and the benefit is controversial. METHODS: We systematically analysed data from 898 ET HU kidney transplant recipients from 61 transplant centres between 1996 and 2010 and investigated the 5-year patient and graft outcomes and differences between relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Kidney recipients with an HU status were younger (median 43 versus 55 years) and spent less time on the waiting list compared with non-HU recipients (34 versus 54 months). They received grafts with significantly more mismatches (mean 3.79 versus 2.42; P < 0.001) and the percentage of retransplantations was remarkably higher (37.5 versus 16.7%). Patient survival (P = 0.0053) and death with a functioning graft (DwFG; P < 0.0001) after HU transplantation were significantly worse than in non-HU recipients, whereas graft outcome was comparable (P = 0.094). Analysis according to the different HU indications revealed that recipients listed HU because of an imminent lack of access for dialysis had a significantly worse patient survival (P = 0.0053) and DwFG (P = 0.0462) compared with recipients with psychological problems and suicidality because of dialysis. In addition, retransplantation had a negative impact on patient and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Facing organ shortages, increasing wait times and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of HU allocation and propose more restrictive criteria with regard to individuals with vascular complications or repeated retransplantations in order to support patients on the non-HU waiting list with a much better long-term prognosis.

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.

Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Rare Disease Registries.

Rare diseases (RD) patient registries are powerful instruments that help develop clinical research, facilitate the planning of appropriate clinical trials, improve patient care, and support healthcare management. They constitute a key information system that supports the activities of European Reference Networks (ERNs) on rare diseases. A rapid proliferation of RD registries has occurred during the last years and there is a need to develop guidance for the minimum requirements, recommendations and standards necessary to maintain a high-quality registry. In response to these heterogeneities, in the framework of RD-Connect, a European platform connecting databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for rare disease research, we report on a list of recommendations, developed by a group of experts, including members of patient organizations, to be used as a framework for improving the quality of RD registries. This list includes aspects of governance, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data and information, infrastructure, documentation, training, and quality audit. The list is intended to be used by established as well as new RD registries. Further work includes the development of a toolkit to enable continuous assessment and improvement of their organizational and data quality.

Center Volume Is Associated With Outcome After Pancreas Transplantation Within the Eurotransplant Region.

BACKGROUND: Outcome after surgery depends on several factors, among these, the annual volume-outcome relationship. This might also be the case in a highly complex field as pancreas transplantation. No study has investigated this relationship in a European setting. METHODS: All consecutive pancreas transplantations from January 2008 until December 2013 were included. Donor-, recipient-, and transplant-related factors were analyzed for their association with patient and graft survivals. Centers were classified in equally sized groups as being low volume (<5 transplantations on average each year in the 5 preceding years), medium volume (5-13/year), or high volume (≥13/year). RESULTS: In the study period, 1276 pancreas transplantations were included. Unadjusted 1-year patient survival was associated with center volume and was best in high volume centers, compared with medium and low volume: 96.5%, 94% and 92.3%, respectively (P = 0.017). Pancreas donor risk index (PDRI) was highest in high volume centers: 1.38 versus 1.21 in medium and 1.25 in low volume centers (P < 0.001). Pancreas graft survival at 1 year did not differ significantly between volume categories: 86%, 83.2%, and 81.6%, respectively (P = 0.114). After multivariate Cox-regression analysis, higher PDRI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; P < 0.001), retransplantation (HR, 1.91; P = 0.002), and higher recipient body mass index (HR, 1.04; P = 0.024) were risk factors for pancreas graft failure. High center volume was protective for graft failure (HR, 0.70; P = 0.037) compared with low center volume. CONCLUSION: Patient and graft survival after pancreas transplantation are superior in higher volume centers. High volume centers have good results, even though they transplant organs with the highest PDRI.