Dual kidney transplants from adult marginal donors successfully expand the limited deceased donor organ pool.

BACKGROUND: The need to expand the organ donor pool remains a formidable challenge in kidney transplantation (KT). The use of expanded criteria donors (ECDs) represents one approach, but kidney discard rates are high because of concerns regarding overall quality. Dual KT (DKT) may reduce organ discard and optimize the use of kidneys from marginal donors. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single-center retrospective review of outcomes in adult recipients of DKTs from adult marginal deceased donors (DD) defined by limited renal functional capacity. If the calculated creatinine clearance in an adult DD was <65 mL/min, then the kidneys were transplanted as a DKT. RESULTS: Over 11.5 yr, 72 DKTS were performed including 45 from ECDs, 17 from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, and 10 from standard criteria donors (SCD). Mean adult DD and recipient ages were both 60 yr, including 29 DDs and 26 recipients ≥65 yr of age. Mean pre-DKT waiting and dialysis vintage times were 12 months and 25 months, respectively. Actual patient and graft survival rates were 84.7% and 70.8%, respectively, with a mean follow-up of 58 months. One yr and death-censored graft survival rates were 90% and 80%, respectively. Outcomes did not differ by DD category, recipient age, or presence of delayed graft function (DGF). Eleven patients died at a mean of 32 months post-DKT (eight with functioning grafts) and 13 other patients experienced graft losses at a mean of 33 months. The incidence of DGF was 25%; there were two cases (2.8%) of primary non-function. Mean length of initial hospital stay was 7.2 d. Mean serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate levels at 12 and 24 months were 1.5 and 53 and 1.5 mg/dL and 51 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , respectively. DKT graft survival and function were superior to concurrent single ECD and similar to concurrent SCD KTs. Two patients underwent successful kidney retransplantation, so the dialysis-free rate in surviving patients was 87%. The proportion of total renal function transplanted from adult DD to DKT recipients was 77% compared to 56% for patients receiving single KTs. CONCLUSIONS: Dual kidney transplantation using kidneys from adult marginal DDs that otherwise might be discarded offer a viable option to counteract the growing shortage of acceptable single kidneys. Excellent medium-term outcomes can be achieved and waiting times can be reduced in a predominantly older recipient population.

Influence of recipient age on deceased donor kidney transplant outcomes in the expanded criteria donor era.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center review of 884 deceased donor (DD) kidney transplants (KTs) in patients (pts) aged ≥40 yr. RESULTS: One hundred and four (11.8%) pts were ≥70 (mean 74), 286 (32.3%) were 60-69 (mean 64), and 494 (55.9%) were 40-59 (mean 51) yr of age; the proportion receiving expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys were 66%, 49%, and 30%, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean waiting time (15 months) was shorter for pts ≥70 yr compared to the other two groups combined (23 months, p = 0.002). With mean follow-up ranging from 54 to 70 months, actual pt (81% vs. 72%, p = 0.002) and graft (66% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.03) survival rates were higher in the younger compared to the two older groups, whereas death-censored graft survival was similar (76% vs. 73%, p = NS). The incidence of death with a functioning graft correlated with older recipient age group, increasing from 13% to 18% to 23% (p = 0.01). The incidence of delayed graft function was similar (31.8% overall), and renal function, morbidity, and resource utilization were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: By directing ECD kidneys to selected older pts, waiting times are reduced and censored survival outcomes are similar to middle-aged patients, suggesting that matching strategies for graft and patient lifespan are warranted.

Experience with deceased donor kidney transplantation in 114 patients over age 60.

BACKGROUND: In the recent past, advanced age was a contraindication to kidney transplantation (KT). The purpose of this study was to review retrospectively our single center experience in deceased donor (DD) KT with respect to recipient age. METHODS: From 10/1/01 to 9/1/06, we performed 356 adult DD KTs. Patients received antibody induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and tapered steroids. RESULTS: A total of 114 (32%) patients were greater than 60 (including 25 >70 years), 186 (52%) were 40-59 years of age, and 56 (16%) were 19-39 years of age. Of the 114 older patients, 61 (54%) received KTs from expanded criteria DDs (ECD), more than the younger age groups (39% ECDs in patients 40-59 years versus 18% ECDs in patients 19-39 years, P < .0001). Mean waiting time (21 mo) was less for patients greater than 60 years compared with the other 2 groups combined (29 mo, P = .06). Patient survival was 91% in recipients greater than 60 years compared with 95% in those less than 60 years of age (P = NS) with a mean follow-up of 27 mo. Graft survival was similar for all 3 age groups (82% >60 years vs 83% in patients 40-59 years vs 87% in patients 19-39 years, P = NS). Initial and subsequent graft function, morbidity, and resource use were similar among groups. Patient survival [93% ECD vs 89% standard criteria DDs (SCD), P = NS) and graft survival (82% ECD vs 81% SCD, P = NS) rates were similar, whereas mean waiting times (18 mo ECD vs 25 mo SCD, P = .04) were less in patients greater than 60 years who received ECD KTs compared with patients greater than 60 years who received SCD KTs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients greater than 60 years account currently for one third of DD KTs performed at our center, and more than half receive kidneys from ECDs. By preferentially directing ECD kidneys to appropriately selected elderly patients, waiting times can be decreased and survival is similar compared with SCD KTs in the elderly. In addition, short-term outcomes can be achieved in patients greater than 60 years that are comparable with those in younger patients.

Optimal use of older donors and recipients in kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The aging donor and recipient population have led to new challenges in kidney transplantation. The purpose of this study was to review retrospectively our single center experience in deceased-donor kidney transplantation, with respect to donor and recipient age. METHODS: From October 1, 2001, through February 20, 2004, we performed 144 deceased-donor kidney transplantations, which included 37 procedures (26%) in recipients > or =60 years old and 107 procedures (74%) in recipients 19 to 59 years old. The deceased-donor pool included 57 expanded criteria donors (ECD) and 87 standard criteria donors (defined as not ECD). ECD kidneys were used by matching estimated renal functional mass to recipient size (body mass index, <25 kg/m(2)), which included the use of dual kidney transplantations (n = 9). ECD kidney recipients were further selected on the basis of age >40 years and low immunologic risk. Recipients received rabbit antithymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. RESULTS: The mean age differed between recipient groups (65 vs 46 years; P < .001). In recipients > or =60 years old, 23 recipients (62%) received kidney transplants from ECDs compared with 34 kidney transplants from ECDs (32%; P < .001) in recipients who were <60 years old. Patient survival was 89% in recipients who were > or =60 years old, compared with 95% in recipients who were <60 years old (P = .11), with a mean follow-up time of 27 months. Kidney graft survival rates were 84% in both recipient groups. Initial and subsequent graft function, rejection, infection, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and resource use were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: By the matching of nephron mass with recipient size and avoiding the use of ECD kidneys in recipients with a high immunologic risk, short-term outcomes that are comparable with standard criteria donor kidneys in younger patients can be achieved with either older donors or recipients, regardless of age.

Single vs dual (en bloc) kidney transplants from donors ≤ 5 years of age: A single center experience.

AIM: To compare outcomes between single and dual en bloc (EB) kidney transplants (KT) from small pediatric donors. METHODS: Monocentric nonprospective review of KTs from pediatric donors ≤ 5 years of age. Dual EB KT was defined as keeping both donor kidneys attached to the inferior vena cava and aorta, which were then used as venous and arterial conduits for the subsequent transplant into a single recipient. Donor age was less useful than either donor weight or kidney size in decision-making for kidney utilization as kidneys from donors < 8 kg or kidneys < 6 cm in length were not transplanted. Post-transplant management strategies were standardized in all patients. RESULTS: From 2002-2015, 59 KTs were performed including 34 dual EB and 25 single KTs. Mean age of donors (17 mo vs 38 mo, P < 0.001), mean weight (11.0 kg vs 17.4 kg, P = 0.046) and male donors (50% vs 84%, P = 0.01) were lower in the dual EB compared to the single KT group, respectively. Mean cold ischemia time (21 h), kidney donor profile index (KDPI; 73% vs 62%) and levels of serum creatinine (SCr, 0.37 mg/dL vs 0.49 mg/dL, all P = NS) were comparable in the dual EB and single KT groups, respectively. Actuarial graft and patient survival rates at 5-years follow-up were comparable. There was one case of thrombosis resulting in graft loss in each group. Delayed graft function incidence (12% dual EB vs 20% single KT, P = NS) was slightly lower in dual EB KT recipients. Initial duration of hospital stay (mean 5.4 d vs 5.6 d) and the one-year incidences of acute rejection (6% vs 16%), operative complications (3% vs 4%), and major infection were comparable in the dual EB and single KT groups, respectively (all P = NS). Mean 12 mo SCr and abbreviated MDRD levels were 1.17 mg/dL vs 1.35 mg/dL and 72.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) vs 60.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (both P = NS) in the dual EB and single KT groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: By transplanting kidneys from young pediatric donors into adult recipients, one can effectively expand the limited donor pool and achieve excellent medium-term outcomes.

Intermediate-term outcomes with expanded criteria deceased donors in kidney transplantation: a spectrum or specter of quality?

OBJECTIVE: To compare intermediate-term outcomes in adult recipients of expanded criteria (ECD) versus concurrent standard criteria (SCD) deceased donor kidney transplants at a single center using a standardized approach. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Expanded criteria donors (ECDs) are a source of kidneys that increase the donor organ pool, but the value of transplanting these kidneys has been questioned because of concerns regarding diminished survival and predicted poorer intermediate-term outcomes. METHODS: Over a 47-month period, we performed 244 deceased donor kidney transplants into adult recipients, including 143 from SCDs and 101 from ECDs. Management algorithms were implemented to preserve nephron function, and recipient selection for an ECD kidney transplant was based on low immunologic risk. All patients received depleting antibody induction in combination with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. A total of 188 patients (77%) had at least a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: ECDs were older, had a higher BMI, had an increased incidence of cerebrovascular brain death and preexisting donor hypertension, and had a lower estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl, all P < 0.01) compared with SCDs. Cold ischemic times were similar between groups, but more ECD kidneys were preserved with pulsatile perfusion (P < 0.01). ECD kidney recipients were older, less sensitized, had a lower BMI, had fewer 0-antigen mismatches, and had a shorter waiting time (all P < 0.01) compared with SCD kidney recipients. Actual patient (93%) and kidney graft (83%) survival rates were similar between groups with a mean follow-up of 24 months. The rates of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection, readmissions, operative complications, major infections, and resource utilization were comparable between groups. Renal function followed longitudinally was consistently better in SCD patients (P < 0.05). Black recipients had higher rates of DGF, acute rejection, and graft loss (P < 0.05), but the effects were less pronounced in the ECD group. CONCLUSIONS: By appropriate donor and recipient profiling and the use of management algorithms to project and protect renal function, excellent intermediate-term outcomes can be achieved with ECD kidney transplants that are comparable to SCD kidney transplants.

Increased kidney transplantation utilizing expanded criteria deceased organ donors with results comparable to standard criteria donor transplant.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in recipients of expanded criteria donor (ECD) versus standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys at a single center using a standardized approach with similar immunosuppression. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Expanded criteria deceased organ donors (ECD) are a source of kidneys that permit more patients to benefit from transplantation. ECD is defined as all deceased donors older than 60 years and donors older than 50 years with 2 of the following: hypertension, stroke as the cause of death, or pre-retrieval serum creatinine (SCr) greater than 1.5 mg/dl. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 90 recipients of adult deceased donor kidneys transplanted from October 1, 2001 to February 17, 2003, including 37 (41%) from ECDs and 53 (59%) from SCDs. ECD kidneys were used by matching estimated renal functional mass to recipient need, including the use of dual kidney transplants (n = 7). ECD kidney recipients were further selected on the basis of older age, HLA-matching, low allosensitization, and low body mass index. All patients received a similar immunosuppressive regimen. Minimum follow up was 9 months. RESULTS: There were significant differences in donor and recipient characteristics between ECD and SCD transplants. Patient (99%) and kidney graft survival (88%) rates and morbidity were similar between the 2 groups, with a mean follow-up of 16 months. Initial graft function and the mean 1-week and 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month SCr levels were similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECD kidneys at our center effectively doubled our transplant volume within 1 year. A systematic approach to ECD kidneys based on nephron mass matching and nephron sparing measures may provide optimal utilization with short-term outcomes and renal function comparable to SCD kidneys.

Kidney and pancreas transplantation at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center.

More than 1,100 transplants have been performed at WFUBMC, including 60 pediatric transplants and 40 pancreas transplants. The one-year living donor kidney graft survival rate exceeds 90% and the 2 year deceased donor kidney graft survival rate exceeds 80%. The current active waiting list includes more than 300 candidates. Despite more transplants being performed, we continue to under-serve our referral area, which has among the highest rates of hypertension, diabetes, and end stage renal disease in the country. The AOTP has experienced a period of rapid growth over the past 2 years based upon sharing of zero HLA antigen-mismatched kidneys, use of ECD kidneys, liberalization of donor and recipient selection criteria, and the continued development of the pancreas transplant and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy programs. The pancreas transplant program will continue to grow as the waiting list enlarges and matures, with a 200% increase in activity expected within the next few years. The LDKT program will expand as more emphasis is placed on our pretransplant practice, including the more liberal application of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, which has now become a standard procedure at our WFUBMC is involved in a number of clinical research projects studying new immunosuppressive agents and regimens. In this chapter, we have presented our recent experience with KTX in the elderly, ECD kidneys, alternate day Thymoglobulin administration, valganciclovir prophylaxis, SRL conversion using daclizumab bridge therapy, and pancreas transplantation with portal-enteric drainage. We plan to initiate a number of new protocols in the immediate future, including desensitization of the highly sensitized patient, ABO incompatible transplantation, transplantation of the HIV-positive patient, steroid withdrawal and avoidance regimens, living kidney donation from the anonymous altruistic donor, paired kidney exchanges from living donors, and islet transplantation. WFUBMC remains the most active donor hospital in North Carolina, and a non-heart beating donor protocol has been successfully initiated at our facility. Although much has been accomplished, a number of challenges remain. We look forward to building on our accomplishments, confronting the challenges, and achieving a level of excellence that could only be attained by mutual commitment from a dedicated, multidisciplinary team.