Utilizing kidneys from a donor with bile-cast nephropathy.

Here we discuss the successful utilization of a pair of deceased donor kidneys with bile-cast nephropathy. The donor had a kidney donor profile index of 48% and an acute kidney injury requiring continuous renal replacement therapy. Peak donor bilirubin was 40.5 mg/dL, and renal wedge biopsies showed bile-cast nephropathy. Both recipients had delayed graft function lasting up to 4 weeks. The 4-month biopsies showed mild interstitial fibrosis, tubular atrophy, and a resolution of bile casts. These kidney allografts showed the reversible course of cholemic nephropathy and the potential for increasing the utilization of previously discarded kidneys.

Ex-situ machine perfusion in clinical liver transplantation: Current practices and future directions.

Ex-situ machine perfusion of the liver has surmounted traditional limitations associated with static cold storage in the context of organ preservation. This innovative technology has changed the landscape of liver transplantation by mitigating ischemia perfusion injury, offering a platform for continuous assessment of organ quality, and providing an avenue for optimizing use of traditionally marginal allografts. This review summarizes the contemporary clinical applications of machine perfusion devices, and discusses potential future strategies for real-time viability assessment, therapeutic interventions, and modulation of organ function after recovery.

Re-assessing prolonged cold ischemia time in kidney transplantation through machine learning consensus clustering.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to cluster deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) using an unsupervised machine learning approach. METHODS: We performed consensus cluster analysis on 11 615 deceased donor kidney transplant patients with CIT exceeding 24 h using OPTN/UNOS data from 2015 to 2019. Cluster characteristics of clinical significance were identified, and post-transplant outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Consensus cluster analysis identified two clinically distinct clusters. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, non-diabetic patients who received kidney transplants from young, non-hypertensive, non-ECD deceased donors with lower KDPI scores. In contrast, the patients in cluster 2 were older and more likely to have diabetes. Cluster 2 recipients were more likely to receive transplants from older donors with a higher KDPI. There was lower use of machine perfusion in Cluster 1 and incrementally longer CIT in Cluster 2. Cluster 2 had a higher incidence of delayed graft function (42% vs. 29%), and lower 1-year patient (95% vs. 98%) and death-censored (95% vs. 97%) graft survival compared to Cluster 1. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised machine learning characterized deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged CIT into two clusters with differing outcomes. Although Cluster 1 had more favorable recipient and donor characteristics and better survival, the outcomes observed in Cluster 2 were also satisfactory. Overall, both clusters demonstrated good survival suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase CIT.

Liver transplant outcomes using late allocation grafts.

Post-cross clamp late allocation (LA) liver allografts are at increased risk for discard for many reasons including logistical complexity. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to match 2 standard allocation (SA) offers to every 1 LA liver offer performed at our center between 2015 and 2021. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model including recipient age, recipient sex, graft type (donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and DRI score. During this time, 101 liver transplants (LT) were performed at our center using LA offers. In comparing LA and SA offers, there were no differences in recipient characteristics including indication for transplant ( p = 0.29), presence of PVT ( p = 0.19), TIPS ( p = 0.83), and HCC status ( p = 0.24). LA grafts came from younger donors (mean age 43.6 vs. 48.9 y, p = 0.009) and were more likely to come from regional or national Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) ( p < 0.001). Cold ischemia time was longer for LA grafts (median 8.5 vs 6.3 h, p < 0.001). Following LT, there were no differences between the 2 groups in intensive care unit ( p = 0.22) and hospital ( p = 0.49) lengths of stay, need for endoscopic interventions ( p = 0.55), or biliary strictures ( p = 0.21). Patient (HR 1.0, 95% CI, 0.47-2.15, p = 0.99) and graft (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.50, p = 0.70) survival did not vary between the LA and SA cohorts. One-year LA and SA patient survival was 95.1% and 95.0%; 1-year graft survival was 93.1% and 92.1%, respectively. Despite the additional logistical complexity and longer cold ischemia time, LT outcomes utilizing LA grafts are similar to those allocated by means of SA. Improving allocation policies specific to LA offers, as well as the sharing of best practices between transplant centers and OPOs, are opportunities to further help minimize unnecessary discards.

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age. METHODS: 1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Current opinions on DGF management practices: A survey of the United States and Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Significant center-to-center variation in attitudes and management of delayed graft function (DGF) remains common. METHODS: A survey to describe current DGF practices was developed by workgroup members sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and was distributed to both the NKF DGF workgroup members, kidney transplant program directors and the transplant community within the United States and Canada. Seventy-one percent of NKF workgroup members completed the survey along with 70 unique the United States and three Canadian kidney transplant programs. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions were represented. RESULTS: DGF was reported to occur at rate of 20%-40% for most centers with 3.9% indicating their incidence to be >60%. Most centers reported longer hospital lengths of stay and more frequent outpatient visits. Despite the commonality of DGF, only half of centers reported having an established protocol to manage DGF. Kidney allograft biopsies were the only consistent DGF management strategy observed, although use of machine perfusion was also heavily favored. Other DGF management strategies voiced by a minority included having established outpatient practices to care for DGF patients and administering outpatient community-based hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Although approximately a third of survey responders indicated that risk of DGF played a role in their willingness to accept organs, most did not feel that increased cost or clinical impact on outcomes was a deterrent. Future strategies, including broader sharing of best practices, redefining terminology specific to DGF, the establishment of DGF dialysis guidelines and improving access to machine perfusion across OPOs may help reduce discard and improve utilization of kidneys at risk for DGF.

Favorable outcomes in Hispanic recipients receiving simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation.

The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of Hispanic versus white recipients who underwent simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPKT). This single-center study, conducted from 2003 to 2022, had a median follow-up of 7.5 years. The study included 91 Hispanic and 202 white SPKT recipients. The mean age (44 vs. 46 years), percentage of males (67% vs. 58%), and body mass index (BMI) (25.6 vs. 25.3 kg/m2 ) were similar between the Hispanic and white groups. The Hispanic group had more recipients with type 2 diabetes (38%) compared to the white group (5%, p < .001). The duration of dialysis was longer in Hispanics (640 vs. 473 days, p = .02), and fewer patients received preemptive transplants (10% vs. 29%, p < .01) compared to whites. Hospital length of stay, rates of BK Viremia, and acute rejection episodes within 1 year were similar between the groups. The estimated 5-year kidney, pancreas, and patient survival rates were also similar between the groups, 94%, 81%, and 95% in Hispanics, compared to 90%, 79%, and 90% in whites. Increasing age and longer duration of dialysis were risk factors for death. Although Hispanic recipients had a longer duration on dialysis and fewer preemptive transplants, the survival rates were similar to those of white recipients. However, referring providers and many transplant centers continue to overlook pancreas transplants for appropriately selected patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly among minority populations. As a transplant community, it is crucial that we make efforts to comprehend and tackle these obstacles to transplantation.

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation.

INTRODUCTION: Expedited out-of-sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys. METHODS: KDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time-zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1- and 2-year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death-censored graft (p = .66) survival. CONCLUSION: During this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local-regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI-matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Differences between kidney retransplant recipients as identified by machine learning consensus clustering.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to characterize kidney retransplant recipients using an unsupervised machine-learning approach. METHODS: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 17 443 kidney retransplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure and patient death among the assigned clusters RESULTS: Consensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters of kidney retransplant recipients. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and were less sensitized. They were most likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant and more likely to be preemptive (30%) or need ≤1 year of dialysis (32%). In contrast, cluster 2 recipients were the most sensitized (median PRA 95%). They were more likely to have been on dialysis >1 year, and receive a nationally allocated, low HLA mismatch, standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be minorities (37% Black; 15% Hispanic). They were moderately sensitized with a median PRA of 87% and were also most likely to have been on dialysis >1 year. They received locally allocated high HLA mismatch kidneys from standard KDPI deceased donors. Thymoglobulin was the most commonly used induction agent for all three clusters. Cluster 1 had the most favorable patient and graft survival, while cluster 3 had the worst patient and graft survival. CONCLUSION: The use of an unsupervised machine learning approach characterized kidney retransplant recipients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes. Recipients with moderate allosensitization, such as those represented in cluster 3, are perhaps more disadvantaged in the kidney retransplantation process. Potential opportunities for improvement specific to these re-transplant recipients include working to improve opportunities to improve access to living donor kidney transplantation, living donor paired exchange and identifying strategies for better HLA matching.

Distinct clinical profiles and post-transplant outcomes among kidney transplant recipients with lower education levels: uncovering patterns through machine learning clustering.

BACKGROUND: Educational attainment significantly influences post-transplant outcomes in kidney transplant patients. However, research on specific attributes of lower-educated subgroups remains underexplored. This study utilized unsupervised machine learning to segment kidney transplant recipients based on education, further analyzing the relationship between these segments and post-transplant results. METHODS: Using the OPTN/UNOS 2017-2019 data, consensus clustering was applied to 20,474 kidney transplant recipients, all below a college/university educational threshold. The analysis concentrated on recipient, donor, and transplant features, aiming to discern pivotal attributes for each cluster and compare post-transplant results. RESULTS: Four distinct clusters emerged. Cluster 1 comprised younger, non-diabetic, first-time recipients from non-hypertensive younger donors. Cluster 2 predominantly included white patients receiving their first-time kidney transplant either preemptively or within three years, mainly from living donors. Cluster 3 included younger re-transplant recipients, marked by elevated PRA, fewer HLA mismatches. In contrast, Cluster 4 captured older, diabetic patients transplanted after prolonged dialysis duration, primarily from lower-grade donors. Interestingly, Cluster 2 showcased the most favorable post-transplant outcomes. Conversely, Clusters 1, 3, and 4 revealed heightened risks for graft failure and mortality in comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Through unsupervised machine learning, this study proficiently categorized kidney recipients with lesser education into four distinct clusters. Notably, the standout performance of Cluster 2 provides invaluable insights, underscoring the necessity for adept risk assessment and tailored transplant strategies, potentially elevating care standards for this patient cohort.

Differences between Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering.

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.

Alloantibodies after simultaneous liver-kidney transplant: A story of primary nonfunction, retransplantation, and antibody-mediated rejection.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLKT) in the presence of antihuman leukocyte antigen (HLA) donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is a well-accepted practice. Herein, we describe the evolution of alloantibodies in a patient who received an SLKT. The pre-SLKT serum sample showed multiple strong DSA. As expected, all DSA cleared in a sample collected 4 days after the SLKT. Because of the primary nonfunction of the liver in the SLKT, the patient had a second liver transplant 4 days later. An abrupt increase in DSA levels against the kidney was detected 10 days after the second liver transplant. These DSA were refractory to treatment, and the transplanted kidney was lost due to antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). A detailed study of the HLA epitopes recognized by DSA and, after normalization with third-party alloantibodies to address the effect of multiple transfusions and liver allograft neutralization, showed that the elimination of these antibodies depended on the HLA antigens expressed by the transplanted liver cells. The return of DSA after removal of the first transplanted liver was associated with AMR in the transplanted kidney.

North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension.

Complications of portal hypertension, including ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatic encephalopathy, are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite few high-quality randomized controlled trials to guide therapeutic decisions, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation has emerged as a crucial therapeutic option to treat complications of portal hypertension. In North America, the decision to perform TIPS involves gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and interventional radiologists, but TIPS creation is performed by interventional radiologists. This is in contrast to other parts of the world where TIPS creation is performed primarily by hepatologists. Thus, the successful use of TIPS in North America is dependent on a multidisciplinary approach and technical expertise, so as to optimize outcomes. Recently, new procedural techniques, TIPS stent technology, and indications for TIPS have emerged. As a result, practices and outcomes vary greatly across institutions and significant knowledge gaps exist. In this consensus statement, the Advancing Liver Therapeutic Approaches group critically reviews the application of TIPS in the management of portal hypertension. Advancing Liver Therapeutic Approaches convened a multidisciplinary group of North American experts from hepatology, interventional radiology, transplant surgery, nephrology, cardiology, pulmonology, and hematology to critically review existing literature and develop practice-based recommendations for the use of TIPS in patients with any cause of portal hypertension in terms of candidate selection, procedural best practices and, post-TIPS management; and to develop areas of consensus for TIPS indications and the prevention of complications. Finally, future research directions are identified related to TIPS for the management of portal hypertension.

Donation after circulatory death transplant outcomes using livers recovered by local surgeons.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non-TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow-up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent-free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re-LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.

Postoperative statin therapy is not associated with reduced incidence of venous thromboembolic events following kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The pleiotropic effects of statin therapy on inflammation and coagulation may reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study evaluated whether statin therapy is associated with decreased venous thromboembolic (VTE) events following kidney transplantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all primary kidney transplants performed between January 2014 and December 2019 at Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients were divided into two groups depending on sustained statin therapy during the first year following transplantation. Recipient and donor clinical and demographic data were collected. The primary outcome was admission for symptomatic VTE events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] or pulmonary embolism [PE]). RESULTS: Sustained statin therapy in the first year following transplant was observed in 16.1% (n = 223) of 1384 kidney transplants. The overall incidence of VTE events in the year following kidney transplant was 3.8%. VTE occurred in 4.1% of recipients treated with statins and 3.8% of the controls - (hazard ratio [HR] .92, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] .39, 2.21, p = .86). However, there were significant differences between the groups in terms of age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, indication for transplant, diagnosis of diabetes and discharge antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. Following sensitivity analysis in which cohort matching was performed to account for these differences, there was no difference in VTE event-free survival (HR .89, 95% CI .41, 1.96, p = .78) or overall survival (HR .54, 95% CI .15, 1.94, p = .35) between patients treated with statins compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy in the year following successful kidney transplant was not associated with a reduction in risk of VTE.

Outcomes of dual kidney transplants from high KDPI kidneys are superior compared to single kidney high KDPI transplants at 1 year.

Dual kidney transplantation (DKT), utilizing two adult kidneys from the same donor for one recipient, has been used as a way to expand the available donor pool. These kidneys often come from high Kidney Donor Profile Index donors (KDPI > 85%). Data comparing outcomes between high KDPI DKT and single kidney transplants (SKT) remain limited. We assessed outcomes of 336 high KDPI kidney transplants performed at our center; 11.0% (n = 37) were DKT. Recipients of DKT were older (P = .02) and donors had a higher KDPI score (median 96% vs. 91%, P < .0001). DKT operative time was higher compared to SKT (+1.4 hours, P < .0001). There were no differences in delayed graft function (54.1% vs. 51.5%, P = .77) and hospital length of stay (median 4.0 vs. 3.0 days, P = .21) between DKT and SKT. Grade I Clavien-Dindo complications occurred in 8.1% of DKT and 13.7% of SKT (P = .008). There were no grade IVa, IVb, or V complications in either group. DKT had more glomerulosclerosis (P = .04), interstitial fibrosis (P = .02), tubular atrophy (P = .01), and arterial thickening (P = .03) on 1-year protocol biopsies. Estimated glomerular filtration was higher for DKT at 1- (P = .004) and 2-years post-transplant (P = .01). There were no differences in patient (HR 1.3, 95% CI .5-3.3, P = .58) or graft (HR 1.1, 95% CI .5-2.3, P = .83) survival. Good outcomes can be achieved with DKT using high KDPI kidneys with moderate chronic changes. DKT is a good option to help further utilize high KDPI kidneys and minimize discard.

Kidney donor profile index and post-transplant health care utilization: Implications for value of transplant care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Centers discard high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) allografts, potentially related to delayed graft function and prolonged hospital use by kidney transplant recipients (KTR). We sought to determine whether high KDPI KTRs have excess health care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center analyzing KTRs from January 3, 2011 to April 12, 2015 (n = 652). We measured differences in hospital use, emergency visits, and outpatient visits within the first 90 days between low (≤85%) versus high KDPI (>85%) KTRs, as well as long-term graft function and patient survival. RESULTS: High (n = 107) and low KDPI (n = 545) KTRs had similar length of stay (median = 3 days, P = .66), and readmission rates at 7, 30, and 90 days after surgery (all, P > .05). High KDPI kidneys were not associated with excess utilization of the hospital, emergency services, outpatient transplant clinics, or ambulatory infusion visits on univariate or multivariate analysis (all, P > .05). Low KDPI KTRs had significantly better eGFR at 2 years (Low vs. High KDPI: 60.35 vs. 41.54 ml/min, P < .001), but similar 3-year patient and graft survival (both, P > .09). CONCLUSIONS: High and low KDPI KTRs demonstrated similar 90-day risk-adjusted health care utilization, which should encourage use of high KDPI kidneys.

Use of Machine Learning Consensus Clustering to Identify Distinct Subtypes of Kidney Transplant Recipients With DGF and Associated Outcomes.

Data and transplant community opinion on delayed graft function (DGF), and its impact on outcomes, remains varied. An unsupervised machine learning consensus clustering approach was applied to categorize the clinical phenotypes of kidney transplant (KT) recipients with DGF using OPTN/UNOS data. DGF was observed in 20.9% (n = 17,073) of KT and most kidneys had a KDPI score <85%. Four distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were young, high PRA re-transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older diabetics and more likely to receive higher KDPI kidneys. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and non-diabetic; they received lower KDPI kidneys. Cluster 4 recipients were middle-aged, had diabetes or hypertension and received well-matched standard KDPI kidneys. By cluster, one-year patient survival was 95.7%, 92.5%, 97.2% and 94.3% (p < 0.001); one-year graft survival was 89.7%, 87.1%, 91.6%, and 88.7% (p < 0.001). There were no differences between clusters after accounting for death-censored graft loss (p = 0.08). Clinically meaningful differences in recipient characteristics were noted between clusters, however, after accounting for death and return to dialysis, there were no differences in death-censored graft loss. Greater emphasis on recipient comorbidities as contributors to DGF and outcomes may help improve utilization of DGF at-risk kidneys.

Association of DGF and Early Readmissions on Outcomes Following Kidney Transplantation.

Concerns regarding outcomes and early resource utilization are potential deterrents to broader use of kidneys at risk for delayed graft function (DGF). We assessed outcomes specific to kidneys with DGF that required early readmission following transplant. Three groups were identified: 1) recipients with DGF not requiring readmission, 2) recipients with DGF having an isolated readmission, and 3) recipients with DGF requiring ≥2 readmissions. Most recipients either required a single readmission (26.8%, n = 247) or no readmission (56.1%, n = 517); 17.1% (n = 158), had ≥2 readmissions. Recipients requiring ≥2 readmissions were likely to be diabetic (53.8%, p = 0.04) and have longer dialysis vintage (p = 0.01). Duration of DGF was longer with increasing number of readmissions (p < 0.001). There were no differences in patient survival for those with DGF and 0, 1 and ≥2 readmissions (p = 0.13). Graft survival, however, was lower for those with ≥2 readmissions (p < 0.0001). This remained true when accounting for death-censored graft loss (p = 0.0012). Additional subgroup analysis was performed on mate kidneys with and without DGF and mate kidneys, both with DGF, with and without readmissions. For these subgroups, there were no differences in patient or graft survival. As a whole, patients with DGF have excellent outcomes, however, patients with DGF requiring ≥2 readmissions have lower graft survival. A better understanding of recipient variables contributing to multiple readmissions may allow for improvements in the utilization of DGF at-risk kidneys.

Duration of delayed graft function and its impact on graft outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the impact of delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney transplant outcomes. We hypothesize that the duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with long-term kidney graft function. METHODS: We analyzed all deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKT) done at our center between 2008 to 2020. We determined factors associated with DGF duration. DGF duration was assessed at three 14-day intervals: < 14 DGF days, 14-27 DGF days, > 28 DGF days. We studied the impact of DGF duration on survival and graft function and resource utilization, including hospital length of stay and readmissions. RESULTS: 1714 DDKT recipients were included, 59.4% (n = 1018) had DGF. The median DGF duration was 10 days IQR (6,15). The majority of recipients (95%) had resolution of DGF within 28 days. Donor factors associated with DGF days were longer cold ischemia time, donor on inotropes, older age, donation after circulatory death, higher terminal creatinine, and hypertension. Recipient factors associated with increased DGF duration included male sex, length on dialysis before transplant, and higher body mass index. There were no differences in acute rejection events or interstitial fibrosis progression by 4 months when comparing DGF days. The median length of stay was 3 days. However, readmissions increased with increasing DGF duration. Death-censored graft survival was not associated with the length of DGF except when DGF lasted > 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior graft survival was observed only in recipients of DDKT with DGF lasting beyond 28 days. DGF lasting < 28 days had no impact on graft survival. Duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with graft survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospective study approved by Mayo Clinic IRB number ID: 20-011561.