RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite growing waiting lists for renal transplants, hesitations persist with regard to the use of deceased after cardiac death (DCD) renal grafts. We evaluated the outcomes of DCD donations in The Netherlands, the country with the highest proportion of DCD procedures (42.9%) to test whether these hesitations are justified. METHODS: This study included all procedures with grafts donated after brain death (DBD) (nâ¯=â¯3611) and cardiac death (nâ¯=â¯2711) performed between 2000 and 2017. Transplant outcomes were compared by Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analysis, and factors associated with short (within 90â¯days of transplantation) and long-term graft loss evaluated in multi-variable analyses. FINDINGS: Despite higher incidences of early graft loss (+ 50%) and delayed graft function (+ 250%) in DCD grafts, 10-year graft and recipient survival were similar for the two graft types (Combined 10-year graft survival: 73.9% (95% CI: 72.5-75.2), combined recipient survival: 64.5% (95 CI: 63.0-66.0%)). Long-term outcome equivalence was explained by a reduced impact of delayed graft function on DCD graft survival (RR: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55-0.87), pâ¯<â¯0.001). Mid and long-term graft function (eGFR), and the impact of incident delayed graft function on eGFR were similar for DBD and DCD grafts. INTERPRETATION: Mid and long term outcomes for DCD grafts are equivalent to DBD kidneys. Poorer short term outcomes are offset by a lesser impact of delayed graft function on DCD graft survival. This nation-wide evaluation does not justify the reluctance to use of DCD renal grafts. A strong focus on short-term outcome neglects the superior recovery potential of DCD grafts.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Organ shortage persists despite a high rate of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Netherlands. The median waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in 2013 was 3.5 years. Most DCD kidneys are from controlled DCD (cDCD; Maastricht category III). Experience with uncontrolled donors after cardiac death (uDCD), that is, donors with an unexpected and irreversible cardiac arrest (Maastricht categories I and II), is increasing; and its effect on transplant outcomes needs evaluation. METHODS: We used the Dutch Organ Transplantation Registry to include recipients (≥18 years old) from all Dutch centers who received transplants from 2002 to 2012 with a first DCD kidney. We compared transplant outcome in uDCD (n = 97) and cDCD (n = 1441). RESULTS: Primary nonfunction in uDCD was higher than in the cDCD (19.6% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001, respectively). Delayed graft function was also higher in uDCD than in cDCD, but not significantly (73.7% vs 63.3%, P = .074, respectively). If censored for primary nonfunction, estimated glomerular filtration rates after 1 year and 5 years were comparable between uDCD and cDCD (1 year: uDCD, 44.3 (23.4) mL/min/m and cDCD, 45.8 (24.1) mL/min/m; P = 0.621; 5 years: uDCD, 49.1 (25.6) mL/min/m and cDCD, 47.7 (21.7) mL/min/m; P = 0.686). The differences in primary nonfunction between kidneys from uDCD and cDCD were explained by differences in the first warm ischemic period, cold ischemic time, and donor age. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that uDCD kidneys have potential for excellent function and can constitute a valuable extension of the donor pool. However, further efforts are necessary to address the high rate of primary nonfunction.