Safety of Kidney Transplantation from Donors with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV is an emerging practice. It has been performed since 2016 under the U.S. congressional HIV Organ Policy Equity Act and is currently approved for research only. The Department of Health and Human Services is considering expanding the procedure to clinical practice, but data are limited to small case series that did not include donors without HIV as controls. METHODS: In an observational study conducted at 26 U.S. centers, we compared transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors with HIV and donors without HIV to recipients with HIV. The primary outcome was a safety event (a composite of death from any cause, graft loss, serious adverse event, HIV breakthrough infection, persistent failure of HIV treatment, or opportunistic infection), assessed for noninferiority (margin for the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, 3.00). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, survival without graft loss, rejection, infection, cancer, and HIV superinfection. RESULTS: We enrolled 408 transplantation candidates, of whom 198 received a kidney from a deceased donor; 99 received a kidney from a donor with HIV and 99 from a donor without HIV. The adjusted hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.38), which showed noninferiority. The following secondary outcomes were similar whether the donor had HIV or not: overall survival at 1 year (94% vs. 95%) and 3 years (85% vs. 87%), survival without graft loss at 1 year (93% vs. 90%) and 3 years (84% vs. 81%), and rejection at 1 year (13% vs. 21%) and 3 years (21% vs. 24%). The incidence of serious adverse events, infections, surgical or vascular complications, and cancer was similar in the groups. The incidence of HIV breakthrough infection was higher among recipients of kidneys from donors with HIV (incidence rate ratio, 3.14; 95%, CI, 1.02 to 9.63), with one potential HIV superinfection among the 58 recipients in this group with sequence data and no persistent failures of HIV treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of kidney transplantation in persons with HIV, transplantation from donors with HIV appeared to be noninferior to that from donors without HIV. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03500315.).

Vasopressin for Post-kidney Transplant Hypotension.

Introduction: Hypotension after deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) is a risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and poor graft survival (GS). We hypothesize that vasopressin use in hypotensive DDKT recipients (DDKTRs) to increase blood pressure (BP) reduces DGF rates and is safe without increasing mortality. Methods: Group with vasopressin "study group" (n = 45) was defined as DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 who required vasopressin for hypotension systolic BP (SBP) <120 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) <60 mm Hg. DDKTRs with no-vasopressin "comparison group" (n = 90) were propensity score-matched DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 without vasopressin use. Primary outcomes were GS, creatinine and allograft biopsy rate at 1 year, DGF rate, and death during transplant hospitalization. Results: Vasopressin group had lower mean maximum and minimum SBP and DBP in the operating room (OR). Median vasopressin start time post-DDKT was 2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 1-6), and duration of use was 42 hours (IQR 24-63). DGF, creatinine at 1 year, and allograft biopsy rates were comparable. No deaths occurred during transplant hospitalization. Multivariable analysis did not find an effect of vasopressin use on GS. Conclusion: Treatment of hypotensive DDKTRs with vasopressin is safe and facilitated similar graft function and survival with that of nonhypotensive patients. In the absence of a randomized control trial, our study supports the safety of vasopressin therapy to prevent the adverse effects of hypotension.

Patient and Graft Survival Outcomes During 2 Eras of Immunosuppression Protocols in Kidney Transplantation: Indiana University Retrospective Cohort Experience.

BACKGROUND: Since 1964 when Indiana University performed its first kidney transplant, immunosuppression protocol was steroid-based until 2004 when steroid-free immunosuppression protocol was adopted. We describe clinical outcomes on our patients administered early steroid withdrawal (ESW) protocol (5 days) compared with our historical cohort (HC), who were on chronic steroid-based immunosuppression. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study evaluating kidney transplant recipients between 1993 and 2003 (HC, n = 1689) and between 2005 and 2016 (ESW cohort, n = 2097) at the Indiana University program, with a median follow-up of 10.5 years and 6.1 years, respectively. Primary outcomes were patient and death-censored graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years in both study cohorts. Secondary outcomes were 1-year rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection; graft function at 1, 3, and 5 years; and risk of post-transplant infection (BK virus and cytomegalovirus) in the ESW cohort. Cox proportional model and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate survival probabilities. Fisher exact tests were used to compare episodes of acute rejection in the ESW cohort. RESULTS: No difference was observed in patient survival between the ESW and HC cohorts (P = .13). Compared with the ESW cohort, death-censored graft survival was significantly worse in the HC (5 year: 86.4% vs 90.6%, log-rank P < .001). One-year acute rejection reported in the ESW cohort alone was 15.7% and significantly worse in Black patients and younger patients (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this sizeable single-center cohort study with significant ethnic diversity, ESW is a viable alternative to steroid-based immunosuppression protocol in kidney transplant recipients.

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs. METHODS: We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers responded, representing 59% of US LKD programs and 72.4% of 2019 and 72.5% of 2020 LKD volume (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-OPTN 2021). In all, 48.6% of responding centers had received inquiries from such LKDs, whereas 44.3% were currently evaluating. A total of 98 donors were in the evaluation phase, whereas 27.8% centers had approved 42 such donors to proceed with donation. A total of 50.8% of participants preferred to wait >3 months, and 91% would wait at least 1 month from onset of infection to LD surgery. The most common reason to exclude LDs was evidence of COVID-19-related AKI (59.8%) even if resolved, followed by COVID-19-related pneumonia (28.7%) and hospitalization (21.3%). The most common concern in accepting such donors was kidney health postdonation (59.2%), followed by risk of transmission to the recipient (55.7%), donor perioperative pulmonary risk (41.4%), and donor pulmonary risk in the future (29.9%). CONCLUSION: Practice patterns for acceptance of COVID-19-recovered LKDs showed considerable variability. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to guide optimal practices to ensure safety of accepting such donors. Long-term close follow-up of such donors is warranted.

Living Donor Gifted Lithiasis: Long-Term Outcomes in Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Presence of nephrolithiasis in a living donor has been at least a relative contraindication to living donor nephrectomy. The concern for stone recurrence and outcomes has been one of the reasons for reluctance to consider these medically complex donors. We evaluate long-term outcomes in recipients of kidney grafts from donors with nephrolithiasis, or history of nephrolithiasis, and provide results from our experience at Indiana University. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 57 donor-recipient pairs, where the allograft was received from a living donor with symptomatic calculi, or with imaging evidence of kidney stones, between 2003 and 2018. This research study was done in compliance with the ethical standards set forth in the Helsinki Congress. RESULTS: The mean age of recipients was 46±19 years and 58% were male. Kidney recipients were followed for a median of 3.5 years and 59.6% of patients had follow-up imaging studies. None of the recipients had obstructing renal calculi or related infections. None of the recipients required any interventions for recurrent calculi and no stone episode lead to adverse event to the graft. Hyperoxaluria and hypercalciuria were the most common risk factors in 24-hour urine collections obtained from donors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from a single large center looking at kidney recipient outcomes over a long follow-up period found that gifted lithiasis is a safe procedure. Careful selection of "medically complex donors" with kidney stones based on appropriate guidelines is a key step. Further studies are needed to help develop consensus guidelines.

A prospective multicenter pilot study of HIV-positive deceased donor to HIV-positive recipient kidney transplantation: HOPE in action.

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

Retroperitoneal fibrosis: a rare cause of acute renal failure.

Introduction. Retroperitoneal fibrosis is a rare cause of acute renal failure (ARF) with only a handful of cases reported in literature. We report a case of a 40-year-old male with an incidental finding of retroperitoneal fibrosis. Case Presentation. Patient is a 40-year-old African American male with no significant past medical history who presented with a four-month history of low back pain and associated nausea with vomiting. Physical examination was significant for elevated blood pressure at 169/107 mmhg and bilateral pedal edema. Significant admission laboratory include blood urea nitrogen (BUN) of 108 mg/dL, serum creatinine (Cr) of 23 mg/dL, bicarbonate of 19 mg/dL, and potassium of 6.2 mmL/L. Renal ultrasound showed bilateral hydronephrosis. Post-void residual urine volume was normal. Abdominopelvic CT scan showed retroperitoneal fibrosis confirmed with fine-needle biopsy. He was treated with a combination of bilateral ureteral stent placement, hemodialysis, and steroid therapy. Four months after hospital discharge, his BUN and Cr levels Improved to 18 mg/dL and 1.25 mg/dL, respectively. Conclusion. Retroperitoneal fibrosis should be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients with acute renal failure and obstructive uropathy. Abdominal CT scan is the examination of choice for diagnosis. Full resolution with treatment depends on the duration of obstruction.