Impact of delayed listing after initiating kidney transplant evaluation on transplant outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Longer end-stage renal disease time has been associated with inferior kidney transplant outcomes. However, the contribution of transplant evaluation is uncertain. We explored the relationship between time from evaluation to listing (ELT) and transplant outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2535 adult kidney transplants from 2000 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used to compare transplant outcomes. RESULTS: Patient survival for both deceased donor (DD) recipients (p < .001) and living donor (LD) recipients (p < .0001) was significantly higher when ELT was less than 3 months. The risks of ELT appeared to be mediated by other risks in DD recipients, as adjusted models showed no associated risk of graft loss or death in DD recipients. For LD recipients, ELT remained a risk factor for patient death after covariate adjustment. Each month of ELT was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.021, p = .04) but not graft loss in LD recipients in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant recipients with longer ELT times had higher rates of death after transplant, and ELT was independently associated with an increased risk of death for LD recipients. Investigations on the impact of pretransplant evaluation on post-transplant outcomes can inform transplant policy and practice.

Clinical Utility in Adopting Race-free Kidney Donor Risk Index.

Recent events of racial injustice prompted us to study potential impact of removing race from kidney donor risk index (KDRI) calculator. Methods: We used Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data to analyze outcomes of 66 987 deceased-donor kidney transplants performed in the United States between 2010 and 2016. Graft failure (GF) was defined as death or return to dialysis or requiring repeat transplant. We compared original KDRI and a race-free KDRI (Black donor coefficient zeroed out in the KDRI formula) with respect to recategorization of perceived GF risk (based on KDPI categories: ≤20, 21-34, 35-85, ≥86)' risk discrimination (using the C statistic) and predictive accuracy (using Brier score), and GF risk prediction (using Cox regression on time-to-GF). We used logistic regression to study the impact of donor race on discard probability. Results: There were 10 949 (16.3% of recipients) GF, and 1893 (17% of GFs) were among recipients of kidneys from Black donors. The use of race-free KDRI resulted in reclassification of 49% of kidneys from Black donors into lower GF risk categories. The impact on GF risk discrimination was minimal, with a relative decrease in C statistic of 0.16% and a change in GF predictive accuracy of 0.07%. For a given recipient/donor combination, transplants from Black (compared with non-Black) donors are estimated to decrease predicted graft survival at 1-y by 0.3%-3%, and 5-y by 1%-6%. Kidneys from Black donors are significantly more likely to be discarded (odds ratio adjusted for KDRI except race = 1.24). We estimate that an equal discard probability for Black and non-Black donors would yield 70 additional kidney transplants annually from Black donors. Conclusions: Use of race-free KDRI did not impact GF risk discrimination or predictive accuracy and may lower discard of kidneys from Black donors. We recommend use of race-free KDRI calculator acknowledging the possibility of miscalculation of GF risk in small proportion of kidneys from Black donors.

CT-measured Cortical Volume Ratio Is an Accurate Alternative to Nuclear Medicine Split Scan Ratio Among Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: The 125I-iothalamate clearance and 99mTc diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA) split scan nuclear medicine studies are used among living kidney donor candidates to determine measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) and split scan ratio (SSR). The computerized tomography-derived cortical volume ratio (CVR) is a novel measurement of split kidney function and can be combined with predonation estimated GFR (eGFR) or mGFR to predict postdonation kidney function. Whether predonation SSR predicts postdonation kidney function better than predonation CVR and whether predonation mGFR provides additional information beyond predonation eGFR are unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 204 patients who underwent kidney donation between June 2015 and March 2019. The primary outcome was 1-y postdonation eGFR. Model bases were created from a measure of predonation kidney function (mGFR or eGFR) multiplied by the proportion that each nondonated kidney contributed to predonation kidney function (SSR or CVR). Multivariable elastic net regression with 1000 repetitions was used to determine the mean and 95% confidence interval of R2, root mean square error (RMSE), and proportion overprediction ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2 between models. RESULTS: In validation cohorts, eGFR-CVR models performed best (R2, 0.547; RMSE, 9.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, proportion overprediction 3.1%), whereas mGFR-SSR models performed worst (R2, 0.360; RMSE, 10.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, proportion overprediction 7.2%) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that predonation CVR may serve as an acceptable alternative to SSR during donor evaluation and furthermore, that a model based on CVR and predonation eGFR may be superior to other methods.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Screening for Iliac Arterial Calcification in Kidney Transplant Candidates.

BACKGROUND Peripheral vascular disease and iliac arterial calcification are prevalent in kidney transplant candidates and jeopardize graft outcomes. We report our experience with computed tomography (CT) screening for iliac arterial calcification. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of 493 renal transplant candidates from protocol initiation in 2014. Non-contrast CT was performed or retrospectively reviewed if any of the following criteria were present: diabetes, ESRD >6 years, 25 pack-years of smoking or current smoker, diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease, parathyroidectomy, and coronary artery disease intervention. Differences in evaluation and transplant outcomes between groups were compared with chi-squared analysis. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictive criteria for presence of iliac arterial calcification. RESULTS Of 493 candidates evaluated, CTs were reviewed in 346 (70.2%). Iliac arterial calcification was identified in 119 screened candidates (34.4%). Of candidates with iliac arterial calcification identified on CT, 16 (13.4%) were excluded for CT findings, and 9 (7.6%) had their surgical management plan changed. Overall, 91 (76.5%) candidates with iliac arterial calcification on CT were approved, compared to 203 (89.4%) without calcification (P<0.001). The percentage of screened patients with iliac arterial calcification on CT increased with increasing age (P<0.0005). Age and diabetes mellitus were predictive of calcification. CONCLUSIONS Many kidney transplant candidates are at risk for iliac arterial calcification, although such calcification does not prevent transplantation for most candidates who have it. Algorithmic pre-operative screening has clinical value in determining transplant candidacy and potentially improving postoperative outcomes in patients requiring kidney transplantation.

Variable Benefits of Antibody Induction by Kidney Allograft Type.

BACKGROUND: Kidneys from acute renal failure (ARF), expanded criteria donors (ECD), and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are often discarded due to concerns for delayed graft function (DGF) and graft failure. Induction immunosuppression may be used to minimize these risks, but practices vary widely. Furthermore, little is known regarding national outcomes of transplant recipients receiving induction immunosuppression for receipt of high-risk kidneys. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a center-level retrospective study, deceased donor transplants (115,485) from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2003 to June 2016 were evaluated. Patients who received induction immunosuppression, including lymphocyte immune globulin, muromonab CD-3, IL-1 receptor antagonist, anti-thymocyte globulin, daclizumab, basiliximab, alemtuzumab, and rituximab, were included. Associations of center-level induction use with acute rejection in the first post-transplant year, graft failure, and patient mortality were evaluated using multivariable Cox and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among all kidneys, increasing percentage of center-level induction was associated with lower risk of graft failure, acute rejection, and patient mortality. In recipients of ARF kidneys, the beneficial association of induction on graft failure and acute rejection was greater than in those that received non-ARF kidneys. Marginally greater benefit of induction was seen for acute rejection in ECD compared to standard criteria donor (SCD) recipients and for graft failure in DCD compared to donors after brain death (DBD). No benefit of induction was detected for patient and graft survival in ECD recipients, acute rejection in DCD recipients, and patient survival in DGF recipients. No difference in the benefit of induction was detected in any other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: While seemingly beneficial for recipients of all kidneys, induction has more robust associations with lower graft failure and acute rejection probability for recipients of ARF kidneys. Given the lack of observed benefit for ECD recipients, induction policies should be carefully considered in these patients.

Prognostic score matching methods for estimating the average effect of a non-reversible binary time-dependent treatment on the survival function.

In evaluating the benefit of a treatment on survival, it is often of interest to compare post-treatment survival with the survival function that would have been observed in the absence of treatment. In many practical settings, treatment is time-dependent in the sense that subjects typically begin follow-up untreated, with some going on to receive treatment at some later time point. In observational studies, treatment is not assigned at random and, therefore, may depend on various patient characteristics. We have developed semi-parametric matching methods to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) with respect to survival probability and restricted mean survival time. Matching is based on a prognostic score which reflects each patient's death hazard in the absence of treatment. Specifically, each treated patient is matched with multiple as-yet-untreated patients with similar prognostic scores. The matched sets do not need to be of equal size, since each matched control is weighted in order to preserve risk score balancing across treated and untreated groups. After matching, we estimate the ATT non-parametrically by contrasting pre- and post-treatment weighted Nelson-Aalen survival curves. A closed-form variance is proposed and shown to work well in simulation studies. The proposed methods are applied to national organ transplant registry data.

The impact of intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on donor and recipient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have a significant effect on donor and recipient outcomes. We sought to quantify variability in fluid management and investigate its impact on donor and recipient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDN from July 2011 to January 2016 with paired kidney recipients at a single center was performed. Patients were divided into tertiles of intraoperative fluid management (standard, high, and aggressive). Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 413 paired kidney donors and recipients were identified. Intraoperative fluid management (mL/h) was highly variable with no correlation to donor weight (kg) (R = 0.017). The aggressive fluid management group had significantly lower recipient creatinine levels on postoperative day 1. However, no significant differences were noted in creatinine levels out to 6 months between groups. No significant differences were noted in recipient postoperative complications, graft loss, and death. There was a significant increase (P < 0.01) in the number of total donor complications in the aggressive fluid management group. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive fluid management during LDN does not improve recipient outcomes and may worsen donor outcomes compared to standard fluid management.

Outcomes of Kidney Transplant Recipients With Posttransplant Genitourinary Infectious Complications: A Single Center Study.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with postoperative genitourinary tract infections are not well characterized. In this single center retrospective study, we aimed to investigate the long-term effects of early posttransplant genitourinary infections under a protocol that included 1 month of antibiotic prophylaxis on graft failure and patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records of 1752 recipients of kidney-alone transplant between January 2000 and December 2008 were reviewed. Of these, 344 patients had postoperative genitourinary tract infections within 6 months of transplant. Infections included urinary tract infections, recurrent urinary tract infections, and pyelonephritis. All patients received 1-month of treatment with antibiotic prophylaxis for genitourinary infections after graft placement. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable regression modeling were performed to determine survival outcomes. RESULTS: In the 344 patients with postoperative infections, the most common cause was Escherichia coli (34.9%). Kaplan-Meier graft survival results showed no significant differences (P = .08) among those with and those without postoperative urinary tract infections; however, patient survival (P = .01) was significantly different. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant trend regarding graft failure (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.71; P = .09) or patient death (hazard ratio: 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.79; P = .06) in patients with and without genitourinary infections. The major cause of graft failure was infection in the infection cohort (17.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant recipients who develop urinary tract infections within 6 months of transplant may be at increased risk of graft failure or patient death; however, further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between posttransplant infections and long-term outcomes.