The Effect of Recipient Back-Table Duration on Graft Outcome of Deceased Donor Kidneys: A Single-Center Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the influence of the duration of the kidney back-table preparation period and kidney temperature on graft outcomes after transplantation. The aim of this study is to investigate the back-table duration and its relation to graft outcome and the relation between kidney temperature and graft outcome. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, deceased donor kidney temperature is measured at fixed time points using an infrared thermometer during back-table preparation and transplantation. Additionally, the back-table duration is measured using a timer. RESULTS: Between September 2020 and July 2021, 49 kidneys were prospectively included in this study. Median back-table duration was 33.7 (standard deviation ± 14.1) min and donor kidney temperature increased up to 14.9 °C (±2.8) after 60 min of back-table preparation. Mean implantation time was 24.9 (±7.6) min and kidney temperature increased up to 25.9 °C (±2.4) after 30 min of implantation time. Longer back-table duration was significantly associated with higher rates of delayed graft function (p = 0.037). However, this observation did not sustain at 3 and 6-months post-transplantation. No association was found between kidney temperature and graft outcomes. CONCLUSION: Longer back-table duration is significantly associated with DGF after deceased donor kidney transplantation. No association was observed between kidney temperature and graft outcomes of deceased donor kidneys.

Long-term risks after kidney donation: how do we inform potential donors? A survey from DESCARTES and EKITA transplantation working groups.

BACKGROUND: Publications from the last decade have increased knowledge regarding long-term risks after kidney donation. We wanted to perform a survey to assess how transplant professionals in Europe inform potential kidney donors regarding long-term risks. The objectives of the survey were to determine how they inform donors and to what extent, and to evaluate the degree of variation. METHODS: All transplant professionals involved in the evaluation process were considered eligible, regardless of the type of profession. The survey was dispatched as a link to a web-based survey. The subjects included questions on demographics, the information policy of the respondent and the use of risk calculators, including the difference of relative and absolute risks and how the respondents themselves understood these risks. RESULTS: The main finding was a large variation in how often different long-term risks were discussed with the potential donors, i.e. from always to never. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of end-stage renal disease, while 56% of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of preeclampsia. Twenty percent of respondents answered correctly regarding the relationship between absolute and relative risks for rare outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of written information and checklists should be encouraged. This may improve standardization regarding the information provided to potential living kidney donors in Europe. There is a need for information and education among European transplant professionals regarding long-term risks after kidney donation and how to interpret and present these risks.

Stenting the ureteroneocystostomy reduces urological complications in kidney transplantation: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial, SPLINT trial.

The role of ureteral stents in living-donor kidney transplantation remains uncertain. In this randomized controlled trial (SPLINT), we compared urological complications in living-donor kidney transplantations performed with or without stents. We included 200 consecutive patients that received living-donor kidney transplantations at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam. Patients (124 males, 76 females, mean age 54 ± 13) were randomized for suprapubic externalized single J stents (N = 100) or no stent (N = 100). The primary outcome was the probability of a percutaneous nephrostomy insertion (PCN) during a 12-month follow-up. To assess whether no stenting is noninferior to stenting, we allowed the probability of a PCN to increase by at most 5% (this is the noninferiority margin). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. In the no-stent group, there were more PCN insertions, 14% (95% CI 4.3-23.7%); urinary leakages, 12% (95% CI 5.4-21.3%); and surgical re-interventions because of urological complications, 8% (95% CI 1.5-14.5%). The stent group had more hematuria, 26% (95% CI 13.1-38.9%); and graft rejections, 15% (95% CI 2.7-27.3%). Patients in both groups had similar mean GFRs at several time points. Besides a better Euro-Qol-5D in the no-stent group at 2 and 6 weeks postoperative, similar quality of life was reported based on SF-36 and Euro-Qol-5D scores. In this trial, noninferiority has not been demonstrated for no-stent placement in relation to the number urological complications.